Wednesday, July 10, 2013

1984

     When I began AP summer reading and had to read How to Read Literature Like a Professor, I was shocked when the author claimed that there is only one story.  He described how many works follow a common pattern.  As I read 1984, I truly understood that.  Since I've already read Anthem, Fahrenheit 451, and Brave New World, I began to feel like I'd overdosed on dystopian novels because I noticed all the similarities.  Anthem is my favorite, but in terms of which is the best literary work, I'm not really sure.  I just know it's not Fahrenheit 451.
     There is one quote in 1984 that stuck out to me, especially the last sentence.  "The book fascinated him, or more exactly it reassured him.  In a sense it told him nothing new, but that was part of the attraction.  It said what he would have said, if it had been possible for him to set his scattered thoughts in order.  It was the product of a mind similar to his own, but enormously more powerful, more systematic, less fear-ridden.  The best books, he perceived, are those that tell you what you know already."

Lindke and Lecture 23: The Answers

     Questions:  Does Lecture 22 apply only before conversion?  Can contrition proceed from love of God, as in a person being sorry they sinned against the very God who died for them?
     According to Lindke's paper, "Apology, Article XII (V):  Of Repentance," repentance has two parts:
  • Contrition:  Terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin 
  • Faith:  Believes that, for Christ's sake, sins are forgiven, comforts the conscience and delivers from terrors
     Repentance can be described in two ways:
  • Stricte dicta:  Contrition
  • Late dicta:  Contrition and faith
     Lecture 23 states, "One of the principal reasons why many at this point mingle Law and Gospel is that they fail to distinguish the daily repentance of Christians from the repentance which precedes faith."  At all times, contrition can be defined as "being bruised or crushed" (Lindke quotes Our Great Heritage).  What Walther is pointing to with his distinction is that "because Christians are both sinners and saints, their faith in the Gospel can have an ameliorating effect on the fear inherent in their contrition.  The dominant emotion then can become sorrow, based not on terror before the God of judgment, but on the knowledge that we have offended the gracious Lord of our salvation (Lindke)."  However, Lindke goes on to caution against focusing too much on this differentiation, saying, "While this distinction has validity and value in understanding the sorrow contrite Christians feel, it tends to relegate God's law to a secondary position in contrition.  Walther's statement stands:  'Contrition is solely an effect of the Law.'  David was crushed when Nathan said, 'You are the man,' not when he said, 'The Lord has taken away your sin.'"
      Walther writes, "David had contrition together with faith.  That is, indeed, a sacrifice with which God is pleased.  Contrition of this kind is not a mere effect of the Law, produced by the Law alone, but it is at the same time an operation of the Gospel.  By the Gospel the love of God enters a person's heart, and when contrition proceeds from love of God, it is indeed a truly sweet sorrow, acceptable to God."  I typed this quote before reading Lindke's article; when I came back to it today, my ears perked up.  To me, this sounds like Walther is distinguishing repentance stricte dicta from late dicta.

Short Answer:  Before conversion, contrition cannot proceed from love of God.  Afterward, it may be seasoned with love, but this is not necessary.  The bottom line is that contrition is an effect of the law.

Vocab:
Ameliorate:  to make better, improve