There is an old saying that is attributed to the Stoics, Ipsa qvidem pretivm virtvs sib, or virtue is its own reward. The Stoics did not necessarily believe that there was an afterlife, so their point was that a virtuous life was the best life to live. In this sense, a virtuous life was its own reward. However, the Christian philosopher and statesman, Boethius, had another way of understanding this saying.

Just before his execution in 525 AD, Boethius wrote an intriguing dialogue between himself and Lady Philosophy called “The Consolation of Philosophy.” In this neglected but important work, Boethius wonders out loud why bad people seem to prosper and good people often suffer. Lady Philosophy responds with this interesting statement (The Consolation of Philosophy, Part IV):

“For good and evil are so set, differing from each other just as reward and punishment are in opposition to each other: hence the rewards, which we see fall to the good, must correspond precisely to the punishments of the evil on the other side. As, therefore, honesty is itself the reward of the honest, so wickedness is itself the punishment of the wicked. Now whosoever suffers punishment, doubts not that he is suffering an evil: if, then, they are ready so to judge of themselves, can they think that they do not receive punishment, considering that they are not only affected but thoroughly permeated by wickedness, the worst of all evils? 'Then, from the other point of view of the good, see what a punishment ever goes with the wicked… In this way, therefore, all that falls away from the good, ceases also to exist, wherefore evil men cease to be what they were. The form of their human bodies still proves that they have been men; wherefore they must have lost their human nature when they turned to evil-doing. But as goodness alone can lead men forward beyond their humanity, so evil of necessity will thrust down below the honorable estate of humanity those whom it casts down from their first position.”

Through the mythical character of Lady Philosophy, Boethius makes at least two important points. One is that good people—no matter what happens to them—as long as they act virtuously, attain the reward of goodness. In other words, good people become good. Likewise, evil people become evil. Yes, evil people may seem like they are succeeding; but, their evil deeds make them ever more evil and evil is a punishment. Evil is a punishment because it is a non-thing. Only the good truly has substance. Evil is a falling away from the good and ultimately goes nowhere. This leads to Boethius’ second point.

Lady Philosophy tells us that “evil men cease to be what they were.” While goodness leads men above themselves to God; evil degrades men and makes them sub-human. These things, Lady Philosophy says, are by necessity. Virtuous actions, by their very nature, necessarily lead men toward God while evil deeds necessarily lead men away from God to become animal-like beings.

In these ways, Boethius assures us, the good person always prospers and the evil person always fails. In fact, Boethius later makes the point that the supposed success of the evil person is actually a superficial misreading of the true situation. The unrepentant evil person, who seems to be succeeding, is actually becoming more miserable because he is evermore immersed in his own evil. In the moral and eternal sense, there really is no such thing as bad things happening to good people.

James 1: 2-4 My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, 3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. 4 But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing.
Romans 5: 3-5 And not only that, but we also glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces perseverance; 4 and perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5 Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

The subject I want to consider here is self-defense. Is it wrong for a Christian to defend himself or his family from aggressive attack? I’ll start with Thomas Aquinas’ classic insight.

In the Summa, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 64, Answer 7, Aquinas explains his position on self-defense. He holds that a police officer can intend to take the life of an aggressor as long as he uses only necessary force. In this case the killing of the aggressor is for the self-defense of the common good, and because the officer does not have any personal animosity toward the individual (he’s not speaking of rogue police). In the case of a private individual’s self-defense, Thomas notes that the slaying of an assailant is justified as long as it results from the use of minimal force and is not intentional. The difference is that a police officer can intend to kill an aggressor if the situation warrants taking a life human life. An example might be the police sniper that shoots a crazed man holding a child at knifepoint. On the other hand, the private individual should not intend to kill an aggressor; rather, he should only intend to preserve his life or the lives of his loved ones. If the private individual kills an aggressor in self-defense it should be because there was no other way to preserve his life. Here is what he says:

“Therefore this act, since one's intention is to save one's own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in "being," as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], "it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense."

The Divine Law states the following:

Exodus 22: 2-3 "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.”

Here we see that if a defender kills an intruder at night he is not held liable for the intruder’s death. However, if he kills the intruder in broad daylight when he can see if the intruder is unarmed and not a lethal threat, then he is held culpable for the intruder’s death. During the day, presumably because he can recognize and later have the intruder arrested, he is not to kill him (given that the situation is not life-threatening). This is a case-law application of the commandment, “You shall not murder.” God's Divine Law, therefore, permits a man to defend himself and his family. This defense may require the use of deadly force. However, the use of deadly force is restrained by Divine Law depending upon the actual threat to the defender’s life.

In the New Testament there is an intriguing instruction given by Jesus to his disciples.

Luke 22:35-38 Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. 36 He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." 38 The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied.

Here we see that just before his passion Jesus instructed his disciples to prepare themselves for his public persecution by making sure they had a sword. A sword, until the advent of the firearm, was the most effective means of self-defense. Swords were not designed for whittling wood or hunting. Commonsense impels us to the conclusion that Jesus did not contravene the right to self-defense propagated in the Divine Law when he taught in Matthew 5 that private individuals do not have the right to take revenge for wrongs (“an eye for an eye…”). This proper understanding of Jesus’ teaching is reflected in Romans 12-13 where Paul teaches that Christians are not to take revenge and then he goes right on to indicate that the civil magistrate is divinely delegated the responsibility to punish the wrongdoer as an application of God’s wrath against him. In other words, the Divine Law allows for self-defense that might include the taking of life in extreme circumstances but does not allow for individual revenge for wrongs suffered.

A few years back my brother-in-law gave me a copy of “Into the Wild” the best-selling non-fiction book by Jon Krakauer. My brother-in-law and I share an avid love for backpacking and wilderness adventure hiking and he knew that I had read Krakauer’s other riveting book “Into Thin Air.” “Into the Wild” is the gut-retching and disturbing true-life story of Chris McCandless who sought to find himself by dropping out of society and living an idealist existence in the Alaskan wilderness. Tragically, McCandless ended up starving himself to death thinking that he was trapped in an isolated area in the Denali wilderness. Krakauer’s book unfolds through a series of flash-backs so that the reader begins to understand some of the motivations that impelled McCandless to think that he could take on the Alaskan wilderness though he was woefully unprepared. It is simultaneously a tragic and fascinating study of a brilliant young man and his complex family background.

Since I had read the book and since my wife and I love adventure hiking, we went to see the critically acclaimed movie version of “Into the Wild.” I need to warn anyone reading this that the movie includes brief scenes of nudity and some foul language. However, these are not gratuitous nor are they included simply for prurient interest. I came away from the movie with the view that it is actually better in certain ways then the book at developing the McCandless’ complex family dynamics. From this perspective, it is one of the best movies I have ever seen at examining the theme of forgiveness. Without spoiling the movie for readers, I would say that the scene between McCandless and a character played by Hal Holbrook where the character advises McCandless to forgive his parents is truly one of the most “Christian” scenes I have ever witnessed.

It is my opinion that the life of Chris McCandless, Krakauer’s book and the new movie represent the unfolding of a larger cultural story of our lifetime. I believe Chris symbolizes the generations that have come to maturity after the great cultural revolution of the 60’s. In a sense, they have come onto a beach the morning after a wild party. Now the beach is strewn with beer bottles, broken glass and debris. Consequently, their view of life is essentially cynical and they think of their elders (represented by McCandless’ parents) as hypocritical. Their quest is for authenticity and they often choose to eschew what they consider to be the materialistic values of their forbearers. However, they often tragically and belatedly discover that there is redemption in forgiveness and that happiness cannot be found in isolation.

The final written words of Chris McCandless were, “I have had a happy life and thank the Lord. Goodbye and may God bless all!” He wrote the final note on a page from Louis L'Amour's book, “Education of a Wandering Man”, before dying of starvation on August 18th, 1992.

Ephesians 4:32 And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you.
Ephesians 6: 2-3 “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with promise: 3 “that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.”

Well, it is almost Halloween again, that time of year when many Christians fall into hysteria over the pagan rites and rituals that ominously lurk behind the packs of neighborhood kids going door-to-door for “Trick or Treat.” Just last Saturday I listened to a national Christian radio broadcaster deluge his audience with all of the seamy history of Halloween, virtually frightening them beyond what this year’s version of the “Saw” movies will do to teen audiences. By this point you may guess that I’m not a big fan of this kind of bug-a-boo. In short, I think it creates a “bunker mentality” in Christians and it is the opposite of Christ’s work of subduing all things and bringing them under submission to His lordship.

I apologize for the following lengthy quote, but it is well worth reading. It is from the great master of societal transformation, St. Augustine. Augustine’s book “City of God” is viewed by many as the pivotal text of Western Civilization that transitioned it intellectually from the ancient Roman world to the inception of early medieval Christendom. In other words, his credentials carry more weight than your local Christian broadcaster. Here Augustine suggests to Christians the proper perspective toward paganism.

On Christian Doctrine, by Augustine, Book 2
“Whatever has been rightly said by the heathen, we must appropriate to our uses
60. Moreover, if those who are called philosophers, and especially the Platonists, have said aught that is true and in harmony with our faith, we are not only not to shrink from it, but to claim it for our own use from those who have unlawful possession of it. For, as the Egyptians had not only the idols and heavy burdens which the people of Israel hated and fled from, but also vessels and ornaments of gold and silver, and garments, which the same people when going out of Egypt appropriated to themselves, designing them for a better use, not doing this on their own authority, but by the command of God, the Egyptians themselves, in their ignorance, providing them with things which they themselves, were not making a good use of; in the same way all branches of heathen learning have not only false and superstitious fancies and heavy burdens of unnecessary toil, which every one of us, when going out under the leadership of Christ from the fellowship of the heathen, ought to abhor and avoid; but they contain also liberal instruction which is better adapted to the use of the truth, and some most excellent precepts of morality; and some truths in regard even to the worship of the One God are found among them. Now these are, so to speak, their gold and silver, which they did not create themselves, but dug out of the mines of God's providence which are everywhere scattered abroad, and are perversely and unlawfully prostituting to the worship of devils. These, therefore, the Christian, when he separates himself in spirit from the miserable fellowship of these men, ought to take away from them, and to devote to their proper use in preaching the gospel. Their garments, also,--that is, human institutions such as are adapted to that intercourse with men which is indispensable in this life,--we must take and turn to a Christian use.”

Restated in very simplified terms, I think Augustine is saying, “Eat the fish and spit out the bones.” Because all good things come from God, Christians have every right to make a claim on philosophical and religious insights originating from non-Christian sources—if they are true. Likewise, physical objects and even human institutions can be reclaimed for God’s glory. This is why the Celtic pagan festival of Samhain--with all of its strange practices--was claimed by medieval Christians and transformed into All Hallows Eve, the night before All Saints Day.

I, for one, am not willing to give up even one day of the year to the devil.

Since Fridays are now my day off, my wife and I headed for what we hoped would be an enjoyable historical film; “Elizabeth: The Golden Age” starring the outstanding Australian actress Cate Blanchett. At one level we enjoyed the experience. The film is visual eye-candy with period costumes, an exciting sea battle, and lots of pomp and ceremony. Just below the surface, however, lurks the most virulent anti-Catholic and, I believe, anti-Christian movie I have seen in many moons. While Catholics are portrayed as pathologically weird, the real message seems to be that Christianity is THE serious danger to the human desire for freedom.

Yes, Elizabeth is presented as an Anglican Protestant who quietly prays (with great formality) before an altar; but, her real spiritual adviser is an astrologist who lets us know that if the Spanish Armada threatening England is to be defeated it will result from a combination of the fates moving through the weather and Elizabeth’s gumption as a single career woman. Elizabeth’s religion is little more than a thinly veiled tract for religious freedom and stoic resistance to Catholic (read: Christian) oppression. In other words, the message is clear; Christianity is the sinister threat which must be opposed lest we all be enslaved to a spiritual Inquisition.

Critic Stephen Whitty of the Newark Star-Ledger writes that “…this movie equates Catholicism with some sort of horror-movie cult, with scary close-ups of chanting monks and glinting crucifixes.” The Spanish King Philip is portrayed as the most smarmy, wild-eyed, religious nutcase I have ever seen on the silver screen. The producers and director seem to have made absolutely no attempt to be either historically accurate or the least bit fair-minded. For instance, we are told in the opening titles that Philip is a “devout Catholic” who has “plunged Europe into a holy war” and only “England stands against him.” Oh, really. Well, who was Philip making war against? Could it have been the continued Muslim/Turkish expansion in the Mediterranean? What the heck, who needs to reference real history?

This brings me to a little thought-question. What do you think would be the critical reaction to a movie which repeatedly showed a Muslim political leader mumbling fanatical slogans against a Western leader and threatening a holy war with the blessings of all Muslim clerics? You know as well as I do, the critical reaction would be prolonged, vociferous and consistent. Such movie-making would be considered the height of bigotry. Meanwhile, back on Planet Hollywood, you’ll hear the sounds of silence about Elizabeth.