Arnold Lakhovsky, The Conversation, via Wikimedia Commons
While I tend not to discuss books on this blog until I’ve finished them, I realize this practice comes with a price tag.Reading is a conversation.Your mind interacts and engages with that of another person (or persons, for books aren’t usually individual efforts).I find myself as I’m going along asking questions of the author—whether living or dead doesn’t matter—and finding answers.Materialists would claim said answers are only electro-chemical illusions spawned by this mass of gray cells in my skull, only this and nothing more.The realia of lived experience, however, tells us something quite different.These interior conversations are shaping the way I think.There’s a reason all those teachers in grade school encouraged us to read.Reading leads to an equation the sum of which is greater than the total of the addends.
I’ve been reading through Walter Wink’s oeuvre.Specifically his trilogy on the powers.Although this was written going on four decades ago, I’m struck by how pertinent and necessary it is for today.As he posited in his first volume, the embrace of materialism has blinded us to spiritual realities.Wink was bright enough to know that biblical texts were products of their times and that simple acceptance of these texts as “facts” distorts what they really are.He also convinces the reader that institutions have “powers.”Call them what you will, they do exist.Throughout much of western history the “power” cast off by the church has been somewhat positive.Christianities has established institutions to care for the poor and for victims of abuse and natural disaster.Orphans and widows, yes, but also those beaten down by capitalism.They have established institutions of higher education to improve our minds.Until, that is, we start objecting that our improved outlook demonstrates that the biblical base isn’t literal history.
Churches then often fight against those educated within its own institutions.Ossified in ancient outlooks that value form over essence, many churches take rearguard actions that we would call “evil” if they were undertaken by a political leader such as Stalin or Hitler.Those evil actions are justified by claiming they are ordained by an amorphous “Scripture” that doesn’t really support those behaviors at all.I’ve been pondering this quite a lot lately.Although I taught Bible for many years my training has been primarily as an historian of religions.I specialized in the ancient world of the northern levant, for that culture provided the background of what would eventually become the Bible.Reading Wink, I think I begin to see how some of this fits together.I won’t have the answer—we many never attain it—but I will know that along the way I’ve been engaged in fruitful conversation.
Once in a great while you read a book that has the potential to shift paradigms.The unusual and provocative Raising the Devil: Satanism, New Religions, and the Media, by Bill Ellis, is such a book.Perhaps the main reason for this is that Ellis is a folklore scholar who takes his subject seriously.He cites some unusual sources non-judgmentally, but critically.He suggests that folklore can actually dictate reality for its believers, while not demanding that it defines how everyone else sees the world.This fine parsing allows him to examine the satanic cult scares of the 1980s and ‘90s with a kind of passionate dispassion.He traces the historical contexts that made such panics possible, all the while keeping belief structures in place.In the end, the giving in to this folklore on the part of society can lead to tragic results.Understanding folklore might well prevent that.
Since our prevailing cultural paradigm is a materialism based on empirical observation, at least among those deemed “educated,” it is easy to lose track of how belief constructs our worlds.Ellis finds the cradle of satanic panics in the Pentecostal tradition where deliverance ministry—a Protestant form of exorcism—takes seriously the belief in demons of many kinds.This leads to a study of ouija boards and Spiritualism.Although neither led to Pentecostal theology, both play into it as doorways for demonic activity, in that worldview.Add into this dissociative identity disorder (what used to be called, and what Ellis refers to as “multiple personality disorder”) and the recipe for a spiritual mulligatawny is simmering away.You need not believe what the victim says, but if s/he believes, you must pay attention.
Outside the strict confines of Satanism, other cultural phenomena allowed for panics to grow.Popular narratives, largely false, of satanists cum evangelists (think Mike Warnke) mingle with cultural fears such as the Highgate Vampire scare and cattle mutilations to make a narrative of satanic ritual abuse believable.A folklorist sees the connections that a strictly wielded razor by Occam tries to shave away.All of this fits together.When we don’t pay attention to how real this is to those involved, a half-baked public panic can erupt.Ellis suggests such circumstances might well have led individual witch hunts into large-scale witch crazes.While both are unfortunate, the latter tend to lead to many, many ruined lives.The subtle awareness that one need not believe in order to understand those who do is something worth pondering.Reality may be far more complex than the activity of electro-chemical signals in a strictly biological brain after all.
You have to love skeptics.Really.Like most people who’ve spent many years attaining a doctorate, I’m naturally skeptical about many things.One thing that I only temporarily lost (between about 1991 and ’99, if I recall) was an open mind.That is to say, I discounted many things out of hand because people with doctorates don’t countenance such things.I eventually realized the folly of academic arrogance and went back to considering things by actual evidence.The results were interesting.In order to help with my Ed and Lorraine Warren dilemma, I decided to read The Science of Ghosts by Joe Nickell.It’s hard not to like Nickell.He was a stage magician and eventually earned a doctorate in folklore.He then made a career out of being a paranormal investigator.
He begins his book by claiming to have an open mind about ghosts.Very quickly, however, a skeptical reader with an open mind notices his magician’s tricks.He’s very good at misdirection.While putatively not debunking (but actually debunking) ghostly encounters, he time and again comes to the states of consciousness when individual super-impose images from theunconscious mind onto what they’re seeing: when falling asleep, in the middle of the night, when waking up, when doing routine chores, when concentrating, when working.That about covers over 90 percent of human time.During these periods we’re likely to mistake what’s not really there for what is.It could explain much of the driving I’ve witnessed in New Jersey, if not ghosts.And he also picks straw men (and women) to knock over (pardon the violent metaphor).Accounts by the credulous are his favorites to explain away.
What we really need is a middle ground between credulousness and a skepticism that can’t be convinced even by evidence.Yes, ghost hunters use ridiculous methods for claiming “proof.”Yes, some credible people legitimately see incredible things.Nickell never deviates from his definition of ghosts as a form of energy left by the departed.Nobody knows for sure what ghosts are, of course.If they did there’d be little mystery about them.Although Nickell claims openmindedness, he states at several points that at death brain activity ceases therefore nothing can think, walk, or talk afterward.As any experimentalist knows, the results reflect the way an experiment is set up.If the assumption is that there can’t be ghosts, there won’t be ghosts.To get to the truth of the matter something between credulousness and biased skepticism must be brought to the table to see if it really tips.Skeptics are fun, but an actual conversation might be more fruitful.
The holiday season often means doing things out of the ordinary.Despite writing books that deal with movies, I can’t afford to see them in theaters often, but we went as a family to see Mary Poppins Returns.A few things about that: I grew up never having seen Mary Poppins (I first encountered it in college).The new movie is neither a remake nor a sequel proper.It follows the same basic pattern as the original but with new songs and animations, and all of it based on a somewhat darker premise—the death of the mother (which allows Jane and Michael, as adults to both be back in their childhood home) has led to financial straights that threaten to leave the Banks family homeless.The bank has turned cruelly capitalistic and wants as many foreclosures as possible.Sinister stuff.
The reason I mention the movie here, however, is a premise that it shares with Hook: children can see things that adults can’t.Or more precisely, that adults learn not to see.Some investigators of unusual phenomena suggest that as we grow we’re taught not to believe what we see if it’s impossible.I’m in no position to assess the validity of such an assertion, being an adult, but it does give me pause for wonder.We regularly shut out the vast majority of stimuli we experience; our brains are not capable of taking in every little detail all the time.Instead, we’ve evolved to pay attention to that which is threatening or rewarding to our survival, and we tend to ignore many of the mundane feelings, sights, sounds, and smells that are constantly around us.Perhaps we do shut out what we’re taught is impossible.Mary Poppins Returns says it outright.
In many ways this is behind the materialism we’re spoon-fed daily.The only reality, we’re told, is that which can be measured and quantified with scientific instruments.Any apparent reality beyond that is simply illusion.We all know, however, that our experience of life doesn’t feel that way at all.There seems to be no counter-argument, however, since we have no empirical evidence to offer.Experience, we’re told, is unreliable.Perhaps we’re not too old to learn a few things from the movies.Mary Poppins Returns won’t likely become the cultural sensation that its forebear was, nevertheless it contains a message that may be worth preserving.Childhood may hold the keys to understanding reality.
Net worth—a strange concept for human beings—is calculated on the basis of how much cash you’re “worth.”While on that lonely task of sorting through the attic, I came across many boxes of books for which we didn’t have room in our apartment.Our guests, who’ve been few, feel obligated to comment on how many books we have, as if it’s an infirmity to be delicately broached.Or for which something might be prescribed.I grew up believing that what we call “net worth” should be assessed in how much a person knows.Knowledge, not money, in my fantasy moments, would drive the world forward.Books are cheap (generally, but you don’t want to know what I’ve paid for some of these volumes when I really needed them!) and don’t retain resale value, except perhaps in the textbook market.They’re considered a throwaway commodity.
Although I didn’t read it, a recent bestseller claimed you could find happiness by removing clutter, and high on the priority list of things to ditch was books.Will you ever read that again?For me the question is rather, will I ever need to look something up in there again?Surprisingly often the answer is yes.Considering the fact that books are knowledge, they’re a remarkably good bargain for the price.Regardless of clutter.Perhaps that’s a kind of wisdom itself.Books are heavy, though, especially in any numbers. Weight means something. What they contain has the potential of being priceless, even though it’s available to anyone else with a copy.
I used to watch Antiques Roadshow, back in the days when you could still get television reception with just an antenna. You always felt bad for the poor hopeful who’d brought an old book, dreaming of riches.Apart from handwritten manuscripts, books are mass produced, almost by definition.The printing press, after all, was designed to produce multiple copies.Sure, if you go back far enough, or you have a tome rare enough, you might get a nice price for it.Everyone I saw on the Roadshow left with their disappointment worn obviously on their faces.You’re better off buying a vase.That’s only if your bottom line is your net worth, though.If you want to strive for what’s really important in life, I’d go for the book almost every time.Of course, while up there moving those boxes around I began to wonder about the net worth of a good back brace as well.
So, it’s moving day.Amid all the packing and sorting—outside the regular 9 to 5—I realized that this was the first move I’ve made outside the constraints of academia.Well, maybe not strictly so, but I left Nashotah House in the summer, and I was unemployed when I moved to New Jersey to start in the publishing world, so there was no office work involved.The move without changing a job is a tricky thing.And exhausting.
I didn’t write about the process early on, in case it didn’t happen.Buying a house is an exercise fraught with peril and it can collapse at several junctures over the three-or-so months it takes to finalize things.Then there’s the move itself.Back in January I found myself setting books aside that I thought I might not need again in the next few months.We started hauling boxes down from the attic to pack those books in February and March.We finally made an offer on a house in May, and now, seven months after the process began, we’re ready to move.Or so I tell myself.
Our last move didn’t go exactly as planned.Like Bartleby and Loki, we were moving from Wisconsin to New Jersey, perhaps seeking our destiny.Who knows—maybe undoing the universe?We hired Two Men and a Truck to move us.My brother in New Jersey said he’d meet the truck since it was going to take us a little longer to get there.On arrival day, no truck.We called the company to find that the said Two Men had actually abandoned said Truck in a parking lot in Chicago.Although embarrassed, the big Two Men upstairs made no offer of a discount on the move, even if it cost my brother an extra day of work.We’re hoping for better things this time around.
International Van Lines didn’t call the night before, like they said they would.After a somewhat restless night (should I stay or should I go?) my usual 3 a.m. internal alarm kicked in.An email, like a thief in the middle of the night, told us when to expect the big guys and their vehicle.Moving is kind of like prophecy in that regard.In any case, for those accustomed to early posts, there will be a delay tomorrow since the internet people are finishing the virtual move around 11 a.m.Church time on Sunday.If we pull this move off, I might have to admit there are miracles after all.
Gods, the experts say, are on the way out. Have been for some time. The loudest voices in this arena are the New Atheists who suggest science alone explains everything. Problem is, the gods won’t let go. My wife recently sent me an article from BookRiot. (That’s a dangerous thing to do, in my case.) Nikki Vanry wrote a piece titled “Dallying with the Gods: 16 Books about Gods and Mythology.” Most of what she points out here is fiction, and that makes sense because gods and fiction go together like chocolate and peanut butter. The first book she lists is Neil Gaiman’s American Gods—a book I read years ago and which has subsequently become an American phenomenon. There’s even a television series based on it now. Like Angels in America, only more pagan.
What surprised me most about this list is the books I hadn’t read. Or even heard of. After American Gods, I got down to number 10—Christopher Moore’s Lamb—before reaching another I’d read. Then down to 16, Till We Have Faces, by C. S. Lewis. There are, as Vanry notes, many more. Our experience of the world, as human beings, suggests there’s more to it than what we see. Not everyone would call these things gods, nevertheless there certainly does seem to be intentionality to many coincidences. Things pile up. Then they topple down on you all at once. Seeing such things as the works of the gods makes for a good story. At least it helps explain the world.
Many materialists do not like to admit that humans believe. Call it the curse of consciousness, but the fact is we all believe in things. Even if that belief is as strange as thinking fiction only comes from electro-chemical reactions in a single organ in our heads. Gods often appear in fiction. Frequently they’re in the background. Sometimes they’re called heroes instead of deities. At other times they’re right there on the surface. Such books carry profound messages about believing. It doesn’t matter what the authors believe. Believe they do. And such books sell. As a culture, we may be in denial. What we sublimate comes out in our fiction. There are gods everywhere. Singular or plural. Female, male, or genderless. Almighty or just potent. Reading about them can be informative as well as entertaining. We’ve got to believe in something, so why not gods?