Fairy Tales or History?

I was recently accosted by several atheists and skeptics concerning the reliability of the Bible, and after debating with them for several days, I am compelled to summarize and finalize my arguments here, in a place that I control. The main thrust of this debate was the skeptics declaring emphatically that the Bible should not be considered an historical document; in their minds, it is fiction. They claim that the Bible’s mention of talking animals, Jesus’ healings, and Jesus’ resurrection are the stuff of fairy tales.

Normally, I concur, when we encounter a document that includes such miraculous and supernatural events, we do not assume that it is history. Homer’s Odyssey, Beowulf, and Ovid’s Metamorphoses are all fiction, for example, and they include fantastical elements. The difference between these texts and the Bible, however, is that these texts never claim to be anything other than fiction. We do not take them as history because even the authors did not view them as history. The Bible, on the other hand, insists again and again that the things written in it actually occurred and were documented by eyewitnesses.

So the next line of questioning goes as such: Do we know for certain that the Bible was written by eyewitnesses, and do we know that their testimony is reliable? For the sake of time and space, I cannot address these questions for every book of the Bible. But let me apply them, for example, to the book of John, which claims, among other things, that Jesus was God, that Jesus claimed to be God, that Jesus died a substitutionary death on the cross, and that Jesus rose from the dead and was witnessed by hundreds, if not thousands, of people.

So how do we know that the Gospel of John was in fact written by John? Well, actually, in the case of John, there are hundreds of manuscripts (or copies of the original), and their proximity to the autograph (the original) is extremely close. Closer, in fact, than any other ancient text. The evidence that suggests that John wrote the Gospel is stronger than the evidence that suggests the Odyssey was written by Homer, the Metamorphoses by Ovid, and the Republic by Plato. When scholars hold the Gospel of John to the same standard as every other ancient text, we know with almost 100% certainty that it was written by John himself. (For a more detailed explanation of the historicity of the Gospel of John and the science of textual criticism, I recommend the book Reinventing Jesus by J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace, as well as Without a Doubt by Kenneth Richard Samples)

So the next question naturally follows. “Is John a reliable witness?” All the evidence suggests that John was not insane (he makes reasoned, logical arguments, for instance) and that he had nothing to gain from fabricating his story. In fact, he was hunted, tortured, and imprisoned for what he had written. We can assume, then, that at the very least John BELIEVED he was writing the truth, and at the very most that he was ACTUALLY writing the truth. (Again, I do not have time or space to cite all the evidence for these assertions, so I will refer you to Without a Doubt by Kenneth Richard Samples.)

But the final question, the one I am most concerned with, is not any of these. These are merely distractions. The real problem these people have with the Bible is that it includes what they believe to be fantastical, or what I would call miraculous, things. And so the question is not how reliable the Gospel of John is, but rather is what John is suggesting even possible?

In the world of naturalistic science, it is impossible for a person to walk on water, to heal people who are born blind, to raise people from the dead, and to raise oneself from the dead. “You cannot test this in a laboratory,” these people say, and so therefore they reject it outright. But just because these miracles are not testable, doest that mean they are impossible? Skeptics and atheists presuppose that miracles are impossible because they presuppose that the existence of a God who is above the natural laws of science is impossible. If these people really were as open-minded as they claim, they would at least admit that miracles are possible if in fact God exists.

And so the question is pushed back even further. How can we prove that a God who exists above the laws of nature is real? Well, the short answer is that we can’t. But let not your heart be troubled. The entire burden of proof is not on us. The claim “God does not exist” cannot be proven either. That is not to say, however, that we don’t have some reason to believe that God exists. There are, for example, the cosmological, the teleological, and the anthropological arguments for the existence of God, among others (a simple Google search can tell you more about these arguments). On the other hand, the only evidence skeptics have for the non-existence of God is, “Well, I’ve never seen or heard him.” But these people aren’t really looking or listening. No amount of evidence will ever convince them, because that would necessarily change their lifestyles.

So how do I sum this all up? Let me say this. If you feel troubled because someone mocks you for believing in “fairy tales” about undead Messiahs and talking animals, take heart in the fact that the Bible is as reliable a document as any other we have. And think of it this way. Why do we have to assume that these things are impossible? If they actually did happen, for example, what could a person do to convince the world that they happened? Wouldn’t they write a book about it? Wouldn’t they make sure that the book was carefully copied and saved through history? Well, that’s exactly what the Bible is. And finally, keep in mind that these people assault scripture not because it is a book without merits, but simply because they do not like what the book says about themselves. And that is hardly a reason to dismiss anything, especially if you claim to be open-minded and tolerant.

Libertarian Free Will Is Not the Same as Autonomy

A common misconception that many determinists have about Arminian and Open Theist theology is that we defend a sort of autonomous, self-focused notion of free will that denies both God’s sovereignty and the supremacy of Christ. But quite the opposite is true. This is, of course, nothing more than a straw man attack.

These determinists claim, for example, that if a person plays any role in their own salvation, they thereby ‘earn’ it from God and diminish his sovereignty. They claim that if people posses the ability to resist God’s will, then that gives them a sort of power over God, or at least makes it so that God cannot get what he wants. And to further disparage those of us in the Openness camp, they claim that our desire to defend ‘autonomy’ comes from a rebellious spirit against God stemming from an infection of secular humanism.

Wow.

So to clarify, I don’t espouse any of those ideas, and you would be hard-pressed to find an Open Theist or an Arminian theologian who does. To be perfectly clear, therefore, it is important for us to define libertarian free will.

Determinists like to say that they believe in free will, but their understanding of it is not really free at all. Most determinists espouse a compatibilistic understanding of free will, claiming that somehow, in some mysterious way, God is able to predetermine everything that happens, and simultaneously people are morally responsible for the actions that they choose to perform. These people say that God accomplishes this by determining people’s desires and by orchestrating the events that put them into moment of choice, but he doesn’t actually force the choice itself. In other words, we are free to act as we will, but we are not free to will as we will.

I will devote another, later to post to refuting the enormously convoluted view known as compatibilism. But not here. For the moment, allow me to define what I understand to be free will. Essentially, in order for a person’s will to be free, then, in a moment of choice, we must have at least two genuine, possible actions that we can perform, namely A and Not-A. If there are not two genuine possibilities, there there is no genuine choice, and our will is not genuinely free. As other theologians have put it, libertarian free will assumes a ‘power to the contrary.’ That is, it is up to us to choose either action A or action Not-A.

This all seems very intuitive and common sense and self-evident. Because it is. Where it gets sticky, however, is when people start asking questions like, “Does God know what we choose?” To hear the Open Theist response to this, click here.

Determinists reject this understanding of free will and claim that we are espousing a kind of self-reliant autonomy in which God has no influence on our choices, where God becomes a passive onlooker, hoping that we will make the right choice with no power to help us make it. This, of course, is taking the view to a point that we never would.

I would say instead that God does influence our decisions. In fact, God is big enough to influence every decision of every person (and spiritual being) for all of eternity. Think of it like this. In each decision we make, there are all kinds of influences that guide us to making a decision. Let’s take, for example, a person’s decision to steal from a store. Perhaps 40% of the influence of that decision comes from their desire to posses whatever item they are going to steal. 20% of the influence, however, comes from their moral objection to stealing, ingrained into them from their parents, teachers, and society. Maybe 10% of the decision is influenced by the fact that this is not the first time they’ve stolen something, and so they are desensitized to the act, and they know better how to get away with it. But that still leaves 30%. So let’s say that God is tugging on their heart and prompting them to do the right thing and reminding of them of his commandments and so forth, contributing 20% to the decision. That leaves 10%. This last 10% represents the person’s free will, their legitimate choice, and it is undecided, but it will decide the final outcome.

Our decisions are far more complex than either determinism or autonomy, and there is never one single cause for any event.

Now, these numbers are rather arbitrary. Perhaps for a person who studies God’s word regularly and tunes their spirit to his Spirit has 60% of the decision influenced by God’s will. A kleptomaniac, on the other hand, may have their desire to steal commanding 80% of the decision, leaving maybe only 5% to God’s influence, and maybe even less than that to their free will. The bottom line, however, is that in every decision, God has some influence, and we have some influence, and there are other factors influencing the decision in varying degrees. This is why it is important for us to listen to God. This is why it is important for us to groom good character in ourselves, to give God more influence in our decisions. But I still believe that no matter how evil a person may be, no matter how desensitized to God’s will they have allowed themselves to become, God will always some some degree of influence, and they will always have some degree of influence, even if it is only 0.000001%. Determinists say that God gets 100% of every decision. Autonomy suggests that we get 100% of every decision. My understanding of free will recognizes that our decisions are more complex than that.

This is my understanding of libertarian free will. Not that we are independent of God, but that God has given us a certain measure of ‘say so’ in the decisions we make, while still retaining some influence of his own. This view should not embolden us to think of ourselves as the gods of our own lives, but rather motivate us to submit our own wills to God’s will. This view does not suggest that God has no power, it merely says that God limits his power so that we are genuinely morally responsible for our decisions.

As Greg Boyd has said, Open Theism simply says that God determines that which he wants to determine, and he leaves open that which he wants to leave open.

You Can Lead a Determinist to His Logical Conclusion, But You Can’t Make Him Accept It

The logical law of bivalence says that every proposition must be either true or false. So here’s a proposition for you:

God possesses Divine Omni-causality.

Let us first define the term. Divine Omni-causality is exactly hat it sounds like. It means that God is the direct and primary cause of every event that occurs in the universe. While we think we may cause events to transpire, or we may think that other objects and agents in the universe cause events to transpire, this view says that God is the sole and ultimate cause of everything. EVERYTHING.

This is a nice view for many Christians. We like to feel that God not only knows what’s going on in the world, but that he also controls it. It makes us feel secure. It makes us feel like we’re cogs in his great machine, functioning with divine and unique purpose. And while these are perfectly fine feelings to have, the bitter pill that must be swallowed with them is that God causes EVERYTHING to happen. Yes, even (maybe especially) evil.

Are we cogs in God's cosmic machine, or are we free agents of his will?

Let’s go back to bivalence. Either God directly controls everything, or he doesn’t. Despite what many determinists may want, the notion of free will is NOT compatible with divine omni-causality. If God is the sole cause of every event in the universe, then we can’t be the cause of any events. So then, in this view, the unavoidable conclusion is that God causes sin, and even grotesque evil such as the holocaust, to occur. Some determinists even go so far as to say that this evil is what gives God the most glory.

The question then becomes if God causes evil, is he then responsible for it? The intuitive answer, the instinctive answer, the self-evident answer is, of course, yes. Determinists, on the other hand, like to muddy the waters and insert mystery and confusion where there shouldn’t be by making statements like, “God ordains evil in such a way so that he is not morally culpable for it” (paraphrase from Paul K. Helseth, Four Views on Divine Providence, emphasis added). “Somehow, some way,” these determinists say, “God can ordain evil without being responsible for it.” They say that we as people are still responsible for our sins, because we committed the act, even if God was the one who caused it to occur.

This, in my opinion, is not just ridiculous, it is entirely unserious and unintelligible. It would be like trying to convict a gun for murder rather than the shooter. If it is true, as determinists would have us believe, that we are mere tools in the hands of the creator, that we are objects of his wrath and his glory, that we cannot change the outcomes of any events that transpire in the universe, then we cannot be held responsible for the things we do. In other words, if God possesses divine omni-causality, he necessarily possesses divine omni-responsibility.

So let’s apply this to some scenarios. If we accept the view of divine omni-causality, we therefore should not condemn people who murder. We have no right to say that what they did was wrong. After all, they were only doing what God ordained for them to do. Similarly, we cannot declare homosexuality as a sin. After all, God made them that way. He’s the one who determined their thoughts, desires, and actions. Who are we to call evil what God ordains? Scripturally, if we accept the view of divine omni-causality, we must therefore acknowledge that God, in the Bible, speaks out of both sides of his mouth. God commands us to abstain from things like murder, adultery, stealing, and idolatry, but he simultaneously causes millions of people all over the world to commit murderous, adulterous, and idolatrous acts. To take it even further, we must logically conclude that if God ordains everything in order to achieve the maximum amount of glory for himself, then if Hitler had only murdered 9 million people instead of 11 million, God would have received LESS glory; if John Wayne Gacy had kidnapped and raped just one less young man, God would have received LESS glory; if just one less person dies of starvation in famished East Africa, God could receive LESS glory. The view of divine omni-causality, in short, makes God the cause, the author, and the perpetrator of all the evil that transpires in the universe.

Is that a God who is good? Loving? Just? Holy? Worthy of our praise?

Let us now look at the alternative.

What if we reject the idea of divine omni-causality? What does that imply? Well, it implies that we can and do cause some (but certainly not all) events in the universe to transpire. It means that God, who, by the way, is perfect, is not the cause or originator of sin and evil. We are. We are thus morally responsible for it. It means that God is responsible for all the things that are good and loving and holy in this universe, whereas we are responsible for all the things that are dark and twisted and evil. It means that God has given us a choice. Not just a seeming choice, not just what we perceive to be a choice, not a bound or pre-determined choice, but a legitimate choice to either obey or disobey his will. It means that horrific evils such as the holocaust were not the invention of God but the invention of man. It means that God has left the future open, and we have a part to play in shaping that future. It means that God has given us a certain degree of “say-so.” It means that our actions have real consequences, and that what we do really does matter. It means that things actually hang in the balance. It means that we are people, God’s children, not his tools or cogs in his machine or puppets on his string. It means that love is genuine, not coerced.

So here’s the short story. Either divine omni-causality exists or it doesn’t. If it does, then God is the logical cause of evil, and if he causes evil he is morally responsible for it. If it does not, then God is responsible for what he causes (namely Good) and we are responsible for what we cause (namely Evil, although, as we submit ourselves to God’s will, we become his agents of Good). So which God do you want to follow?

I’ll close with this thought. Nowhere in the entire Bible is the idea of divine omni-causality ever affirmed. Rather, the Bible clearly teaches that God determines those certain things he wants to determine, and he leaves open those certain things that he wants to leave open.

If you would like to learn more about some of the ideas of Open Theism, read this.

My Angry Conservative Rant

In honor of the late Andrew Breitbart, here is everything I’ve ever wanted to say to all you liberals.

When is it going to be enough with all you people? How much free stuff from the government do you need in order to be happy? Education? Food? Health care? Birth control? Hey, I know, why don’t we just buy everyone a Lexus? Just because you want it doesn’t mean you deserve it.

I’m sick of you leeches coming to me and the rest of us responsible people looking for a handout, looking for us to subsidize and support and tolerate all of your whims and desires. Frankly, I don’t care what you do in your free time, whether you like dudes, or use birth control, or whatever. But please, in the name of all that is good and decent, stop forcing your views on the rest of us. We the people are not “the collective” which you can simply plug into in order to instantly gratify your latest desire. We go out and work hard and make money not to support you and your loser friends, we do it because we want a better life for ourselves. If you want a better life, you can go out and earn your own.

Now, I know what you’re all about to say. “As a society, we have an obligation to take care of those who are less fortunate, blah blah blah.” Maybe we do and maybe we don’t. If we want to help someone out, then we will choose to. If we don’t think they deserve our help, then we will choose not to help them. And by the way, we don’t really want to help people who think they are entitled to our charity.

We are individuals. Not "The Collective".

So here’s the ugly truth. I’m not going to church it up; I’ll give it to you straight. Life sucks. Then you die. It sucks for everyone. We all have the same 24 hours, every day, but we all get to choose how we spend it. Do some people have it worse than others? Sure. But I guarantee you have it better than a whole lot of other people, so quit complaining and demanding and badgering us and go live your own life. Is life hard? Yes. That’s life. Should we help each other? Sure. But at the end of the day, you have to face the cold truth that no matter how much help you get from “the collective”, eventually you’re going to have to find your own damn way.

So here it is. LEAVE ME ALONE. Stop stealing my hard-earned tax dollars. Stop threatening to take away my boss’s hard-earned tax dollars just because he makes more money than you; because believe me, I work with him every day, and he deserves that money a whole lot more than someone who sits on their government-issued couch in their government-issued house drinking government-issued gin all the livelong government-issued day. You wanna have a house and a car and health care and birth control and whatever else? Get a job and buy those things with your own money. And if you can’t get a job, I’m really sorry, but it’s just not my problem.

So when are you people going to have enough? When will you be satisfied? What else do you demand from your government? Let me know now so that I won’t be surprised. But know this: nothing is free. If you get it without having to pay for it, it’s because the rest of us hard-working, motivated, responsible citizens are shouldering the weight and pulling your slack.

Thank you. Also, vote #withNewt.

Why I’m Still #WithNewt After All This Time

Let’s be clear. The reason I enjoy politics and the reason why I am advocating one particular candidate over another is not because I put my hope in them as a messianic savior, nor do I think that politics will solve the world’s deepest problems, nor am I trying to divide friends and neighbors. I enjoy politics, and I advocate Newt Gingrich for president, because I’m opinionated. And, after all, let’s face it: he’s right about almost everything.

Believe it or not, at the beginning of this very long, very exasperating political season, I was severely disinterested in the whole realm of presidential politcis. I perceived most if not all of the Republican candidates as empty suits with empty promises, trying to use extreme language and preying on people’s fears to gain personal fame and power. And while that may still be true, I have noticed something different about Newt Gingrich, of all people.

After picking Mike Huckabee and watching his painful demise four years ago, I largely swore off politics. No candidate was ever going to offer a plan for a flat tax. And the more I researched the issues, the more hopeless my situation became. Our federal government is out of control. We spend way more money than we take in. The regulations placed on small and large businesses drive those companies overseas and put greater economic strain on our society. We live in a society where people turn to their government rather to themselves for relief and success. And to top it all off, no candidate seems willing to take on these serious issues, or if they are willing they aren’t able to really enact the change we need. And so I began to ignore politics, deciding it was all a losing game.

And then came Newt Gingrich. When I first read his 21st Century Contract with America (which you can see here) I thought to myself, “Did this guy just read my mind?!” On every major issue, Newt Gingrich is right. Optional flat tax. Optional private social security accounts. Replacing the EPA. Returning federal education dollars to the States. Doing everything to promote industry and business and entrepreneurship rather than trying everything to stifle and punish it. Auditing the Fed (for all you Ron Paul fans out there). Taking on the anti-Christian judiciary in our country. Privatizing space exploration. The list goes on. But the best part about Newt Gingrich is not that I got all these ideas from him. These are all political solutions that I have dreamt up on my own or realized through my own philosophical meanderings. No one told me that a flat tax was best for America. I came to the realization on my own that a flat tax is best for America. Newt Gingrich just read my mind.

Does Newt have some problems? Maybe, if you take seriously the circus that our electoral process has become. Open marriages, influence-peddling, snarkiness; these are all things that really have nothing to do with the real issues. They’re distractions. They are ad hominem attacks made by people who are unwilling to embrace true, constructive change.

I challenge you to think critically about what you believe concerning taxes, the role of government, federal regulations, and how much power the president should have over your life. How much of your money (or anyone else’s money) is the government allowed to take? Under what circumstances? Where do they get the authority to make laws? Should the federal government have a budget? Should they be forced to stick to it? Should the government spend less or tax more? Think about these issues for yourself. Then go and read Newt’s 21st Century Contract with America and see how much of your own mind he’s already read. After having investigated the issues myself, it is my conclusion that Newt is still the most conservative candidate in the field who can take these issues to Barack Obama and win with them.

All Grace is Prevenient (and Common and Saving, for that Matter)

This makes me chuckle.

Every time I hear someone say that the Bible never describes the theological doctrine of prevenient grace, I start screaming and throwing things. Not really, but I want to. Similarly, when I hear other theologians talk about prevenient grace as if it’s something else, something different than common grace or saving grace, I also get upset. I mean, they describe it as if God has these different types of grace that he deals out differently to people, and he arbitrarily decides who gets what kind of grace and how much they get.

For example, in these people’s view, natives in Papau New Guinea who have never heard of the Bible, Muslims for whom it is illegal to worship Christ, and people who know who Jesus is and reject him outright all get to experience God’s “common” grace (in the form of rain, sun, food, sleep, and all those other things we take for granted), but will never experience God’s “saving” grace. In other words, God sort of gave them the cheap grace, the kind that everyone gets, but he’s not going out of his way to make sure they get saved. He’s giving them just enough grace to justify sending them to hell but not enough to give them a chance to go to heaven.

I know that this is kind of an extreme extrapolation, but these are the underlying presuppositions that are formed when we think of God’s grace as having different categories of efficacy. My contention is that all grace is common, all grace is prevenient, and all grace is saving.

Let me define some terms. Common grace, in the minds of these theologians, is the everyday sort of grace that we all experience but often overlook. It doesn’t really do anything for us except give God an excuse to punish us. Prevenient grace goes a little deeper. It’s God’s cosmic action in the universe to counteract all of the worldly, sinful systems that we have established over the millennia, and it continually works to overcome evil with good and draw every person closer to God. It works behind the scenes of our salvation, and it does the heavy lifting, so to speak, BEFORE (hence the term prevenient) we become a Christian. While I admit that prevenient grace does not have its own exhaustive chapter in a Pauline epistle, theologians derive the doctrine from a series of scriptures, and it has been a cornerstone theology for many mainstream Christian denominations. Finally, saving grace, to these people, is the kind of grace that saves you from the eternal pit of hell, whether you like it not, and it did so an eternity before you were even conceived. You had no choice in the matter, you had no decision, you can’t even resist it. God made it so by divine decree. Unfortunately, God only gives this kind of grace to a small group of people whom he calls the Elect, and still more unfortunately there is nothing you can do to ensure that you are one of those people. You simply are or you aren’t.

If God's grace were exclusive, it would be neither loving nor just.

As I said, I am trying to advocate the simple yet earth-shattering notion that these three types of grace are not distinct or separate. In fact, they aren’t even mutually exclusive. Saving grace is prevenient. It counteracts our sin and works behind the scenes before the moment of salvation. And it is common because it has been offered freely to every person regardless of their knowledge, experience, or socio-geographical location. (John 1:12; Romans 5:12-19) The notion that God arbitrarily decides who’s in and who’s out and that this is a very small and very exclusive group of elites is so anti-Biblical that it makes my blood boil. In nearly every book of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, God continually makes the case that his plans for salvation are not meant for a small group of people, but in fact include the entire world, all nations. To believe that God’s grace (saving or otherwise) is exclusive is to ignore a vast majority of scripture.

I recently encountered a passage in the book of Deuteronomy that sums this up pretty well. God tells his people, the Jews (who, by the way, thought they were the only ones God was going to save) that his grace is self-evident, inclusive, and requires a decision from us. He says:

“Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, ‘Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?’ Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, ‘Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?’ No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it. See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction… This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and earth, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him.” (Deuteronomy 30:11-15, 19-20)

God’s grace is everywhere. It is common, it is prevenient, and it is saving, if you accept it.

Five Pieces of Fiction Every Person Must Read Before they Die

Please, by no means accept this as an ‘expert’ opinon. I have certainly not even scratched the surface of what is considered to be the canon of fiction, classical or contemporary, and therefore am severely short of having surveyed a vast majority of the realm of fiction in general. But I do love fiction, both reading it and writing it, and I believe that these five stories reveal more about us as human beings and about the world as a whole than any other five books I’ve read in my short years. So without any further ado, let’s get started.

5. Lord of the Flies by William Golding

Golding’s novel about childhood, the loss of innocence, and the evil nature of mankind is at once chilling, convicting, and revealing. When a group of boys find themselves stranded on an uninhabited island, they must rely on themselves and their peers to hunt and gather food, care for the younger children, and select leaders. What the boys discover, however, are the demons that live within each of them, and indeed within each of us. Filled with biblical and classical imagery, this book is both gruesome and intellectual, and nearly everyone can find something engaging in its story and characters.

I must confess that it has been some years since I have read the book, but I do know that the vast and rich symbolism, while at times feels forced, does allow the story to cover nearly every facet of the vast and complex phantom that we call human nature. Is man inherently evil? Can man be inherently good? What happens when men govern other men? These questions and others only get the conversation started. Golding takes these questions and forms around them a story to reveal the corruptions in our own lives and our own societies. If for no other reason, every person must read this book to discover more about themselves and the evil world around them. If you desire more reasons, it is also well written, interesting, and exciting. In short, there is a reason why this book is required reading in high schools, and I am confident that this iconic novel will remain timeless for centuries to come.

4. 1984 by George Orwell

Perfect for anyone with a political mind (or anyone who simply does not want to live in an authoritarian society) this book is a must. A ‘historical’ novel set in Orwell’s future, this book paints a terrifying picture of what Orwell feared the world would become just thirty six years after he wrote it. Winston Smith lives in a world controlled by the government. Everything from tobacco to gin, from the news to history itself, from language to personal thought is closely monitored and regulated by the totalitarian entity simply described as ‘Big Brother.’ While the story does illustrate vividly what a corrupt government is capable of, its greater warning is directed toward us, the citizens. Our complacency and acceptance are what enable tyranny.

The most chilling aspect of the novel is in the fact that much of what Orwell predicted has in fact come true. Both sides of the political spectrum today have correctly identified ‘Orwellian’ characteristics in their opponents, and this should at the very least open our eyes to what can happen when we allow the government to manage our lives. But the novel is about far more than just politics. At its core, 1984 is a story about love, about freedom, about what makes us human, and it is about what happens when we lose those things. Even if you disapprove of Orwell’s hidden anti-socialism and his rather obvious criticism of Marxism, everyone can understand that if we abandon our human decency, we already live in tyranny. Read this book.

3. Hamlet by William Shakespeare

To read or not to read? That is the question! If you read just one of Shakespeare’s works, please, in the name of all that is good and decent, let it be Hamlet. This story has become a centerpiece of our culture. References to this play have appeared in Looney Toons, Disney films, and yes, even Star Trek. If for no other reason, you must read this book for the sake of cultural literacy. But beyond that, it is a compelling story about revenge, sanity, purpose, love, and loyalty.

For those of you who have spent your entire lives locked in your cellars, Hamlet is the Prince of Denmark who is visited by the ghost of his murdered father, and it is revealed to him that his uncle is the murderer. Throughout the course of the play, Hamlet struggles internally over his perceived need to exact revenge, his deep love for the fair Ophelia, and what he knows to be morally right. The story questions our presuppositions of sanity and reality; in fact, it is so far ahead of its time that it could even be considered post-modern fiction. It’s a story about what shapes us as people and individuals, and what happens when those things fall apart. What is a person to do when all they’ve ever known to be true is questioned? If you haven’t gotten around to reading Hamlet at this point in your life, it is about time you do. You must, sooner or later.

2. The Road by Cormac McCarthy

The Road is the novel responsible for catapulting Cormac McCarthy from someone whom I knew little about to my favorite contemporary author. Warning: The Road is not for the faint of heart. This book is especially grim, particularly gruesome, and rather bleak. Set in a post-apocolyptic future, a man and his son struggle for survival. But this isn’t a political book, nor a survival guide should you find yourself living in a world covered in ash. This is a book about fatherhood, about son-hood, about what it means to lead and to follow, what it means to sacrifice. This is a book about what people will do to live when they are pushed far enough. This is a book about carrying on the decency of humanity even in a world void of decent humans.

This book is incredibly well-written. McCarthy’s rich descriptions, his cold, stripped down dialogue, his vast lexicon of verbs and nouns, and his incredibly gripping voice all make the book impossible to put down. This is the kind of fiction that all writers wish they could produce. This novel is not difficult to read, nor is it exceptionally long, and you can’t help but feel deeply moved after reading it; I cried for about thirty minutes straight after I finished it. In fact, I predict that this novel will be required reading in high schools within twenty years. Plus, it won a freaking Pulitzer!

1. Paradise Lost by John Milton

The epic poem of John Milton is rightly classified with such literature as the Odyssey and the Divine Comedy. Its imagery is magnificent; its language is biblical; it’s characters are celestial; its themes are universal. The content of Paradise Lost is based on the biblical story of the creation of the world, the temptation of Adam and Eve by Satan, their eventual fall from grace, and the consequences thereof. Its style draws from the ancient and classical epics: the Illiad, the Odyssey, the Aeneid, the Divine Comedy, and Beowulf. It may be some pretty heady stuff, but I promise that if you read it, you will become more intelligent. Keep a dictionary on hand.

While Milton’s goal of the epic is to “justify the ways of God to men”, it is also clear that this poem is meant as a an exploration of the human condition, the nature of sin, and the mystery surrounding God’s forgiveness. Do not be fooled, however; most critics will try to tell you that Satan is the most interesting character of the poem, and that you really only need to read books two and six. Were you to do that, you would miss out on the volumes of wisdom and philosophy packed into the rest of the poem, wisdom about God, justice, temptation, love, loneliness, war, and violence, . This is a story that everyone must read. And not just read; it must be digested. I recommend reading it aloud. I also recommend C.S. Lewis’ commentary as an accompanying text. But if everyone reads Paradise Lost our world will be a much better place.