I posted on my social media just now that I learned today that the price of a postage stamp is now 73 cents. Someone replied by asking me for my source … wow. We are in big trouble regarding truth!
Thank you Karen for another in a series of thoughtful reflection on this work. I have them all printed and am able to return to them and consider them as a whole.
In this latest instalment you say, I wonder now more than ever if truth is in danger of being starved to death.
Perhaps. But I wonder along with you if truth faces two other more common threats.
First, my sense is truth may die not from hunger but from lack of exercise. From my chair I see so few clear and compelling declarations of truth. Instead I see cautions, complaints and concerns but few few bold voices who say, there is an alternative view and it sounds like this.
Second, truth may die from concealment in the desire to make it relevant. I see lots of examples of making the truth “ relevant” but dressing it up in the language of common culture and easy platitudes. As I read the Gospels I see Jesus making powerful truth claims through contrast. How often does he say, you have heard it said, but I say this. It is no accident that Jesus proclaims that when we know the truth it will set us free.
I agree with JeviecO above who notes that the process is messy. It is also full of risk. Jesus knew that and asked us to Fear Not!
My thoughts for today provoked by the gift of your time and insights.
Roger, your comment has me really thinking about what the best metaphor is for what is happening to truth in our day right now ... I like yours. They certainly do capture something different and perhaps truer. Milton pictures Truth and Falsehood as grappling/wrestling, sort of one-on-one. I think Truth now is being beset by gangs of Falsehoods! Even buried or drowning in them. That's what makes it hard to see her "winning" any time soon.
I'm grateful for your words and insights here--and for reading along.
The picture of ‘Truth’ being scattered to the winds intrigues me. What sustains me is the assurance that when Christ returns He will indeed gather all the pieces of Truth and pull everything together (Colossians 1:17).
It is such a powerful and moving picture to me. Always has been. And I think I had more faith in our ability in this world as reasonable, well-intended human beings to recover and re-assemble more of the pieces than I do now. I know He will gather all those pieces in the end. But it sure seems like we are collectively scattering them more now in these times. Sobering. But it helps to know He will do it.
First, like most Protestants of his day, he confounds church and state - it was the Baptist non-comfaists, not the Protestants, who argued for separation of church and state. He is talking to Parliament about building the Church! He claims the status of Jesus' city on a hill for England, with arguments of exceptionalism now more associated with the U.S. But Jesus' city on a hill wasn't any one nation, it was whoever followed him, it was the Church universal.
Second, Milton personifies Truth as the companion of Christ, but Jesus didn't claim to bring Truth, he claimed to be Truth. "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life", Jesus said to Martha in John 11. In watching untruths take such firm hold both generally and in specific instances I have witnessed personally in the past few years, I have been reminded of one of the darkest warnings of the Apostle Paul:
"They perish because they did not accept the love of the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a strong delusion so that they will believe the lie..." (II Thessalonians 2:10-11). In the personal cases I have witnessed, among people who claimed Christianity, I have seen heretical beliefs regarding Christ accompany belief in other popular untruths. The Bible makes it clear, from the first lie in the Garden, to the final condemnation of liars in Revelation, lies are demonic. The battle for Truth is spiritual, and so, as Paul also says, in Ephesians 5:1, our weapons are not worldly or material, but spiritual - truth, righteousness, and the Gospel of peace - and our enemies are not other humans who are duped, but the spirit of lies.
I think you are right, Holly. I think I was projecting onto my reading of Milton an equation of Truth with Jesus when he rather seems to say (as you state) that Truth accompanied Jesus ... I'm going to have to think about that more and see where/why I read it differently and perhaps incorrectly.
And he definitely confounds church and state--which is interesting given so many who claim Baptist identity today are wanting to do the same again.
I want to quibble a bit with respect to your comment that "Milton personifies Truth as the companion of Christ, but Jesus... claimed to be Truth." Quite right on both counts, but I would point out Paul in Romans 1:19-20: "19 They [unbelievers] know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. 20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature." I would say that the created world is a companion of Christ that is meant, among many other things, to point us to the LORD.
Creation is full of what I would call little truths, because Creation cannot have a nature contrary to the Creator, who is Truth. Jesus' claim to be the way, truth, and life is meant to point us to himself as the embodiment of what is eternally true, but there are many things that are true temporally and for this age that are consequences of how our rational God constructed the world. In that sense I would say such things as scientific law, mathematical proofs, and the whole realm of discovery about how creation and creatures are built and function are truths that are companions of Christ in that they are intrinsic to God's creation handiwork but are quite separate from God himself. They point to God, but are not God; they are distinct from the eternal moral Truth that is expressed in the character of God, but they exist as a consequence of God's hand in and over creation.
Milton is interested in protecting writing that corrects error about the nature of God and faith, but also, in promoting writing that will help men and women uncover important truths about the nature of the created world God placed us in. His many statements about errors fomented by the church make him eager to protect the faith from corruption, but he is just as eager to see human knowledge in general flourish and truth of all sorts applied to the betterment of society.
This is so helpful, Charlie. Thank you. And o realize now that often when I use the phrase “capital T Truth” I mean, not Christ, but eternal absolute Truth. So there is truth, Truth, and Christ-as-Truth. Distinct and yet all pointing the same way. Some of this is the limitation of our language. Some the limitation of our modern way of reading and categorizing. And some the limitation of being human.
I agree that the Creation has truth to be learned - as Paul said in his address to the Athenians on the Areopagus and his letter to the Colossians, the truth of Creation is Christ's. But the truth of Creation can be misused without the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Truth. Jesus pointed out to the religious leaders of his day that their scientific observations of the weather signs in the sky were accurate but they still couldn't see who Jesus was.
The cases I know personally where professing Christians seem to be embracing both heretical theology and popular untruths, the popular untruths are ones that question scientific advancements in medicine, such as vaccines, and call into doubt historical records, such as the Holocaust. These individuals deliberately question what previous generations considered established truth and automatically seek out alternate explanations (their questioning habits were established before the beginning of the recent pandemic, and they lost no time in seeking out alternate explanations for that - I might add that neither I nor these individuals are in the U.S. so American politics were not a motivating factor). Yet these individuals would call themselves conservative Christians, they regularly attend church, believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2, are for traditional male and female roles both inside and outside the church - they also are interested in the ideas of Christian nationalism. As Paul put it (II Timothy 3:5), they have a form of godliness, but, to the horror of their family members, they seem to be denying its power.
It is ironic. In my childhood in conservative Baptist circles, we were taught the spiritual threat to the Truth comes from the opposite side of the religious spectrum, the nominal Christians who are liberal in theology and progressive in ideology and are tolerant of things the Bible condemned, and who put science before the Bible in believing the theory of evolution. Yet that is not where the threat to Truth has arisen.
I'm sorry Karen. Surviving ATI toughened me up a bit for this wider blow, but it still cost my parents and I a church we had fellowshiped with for three decades and left lingering familial heartache.
"I know it is a more difficult, intense (and let’s be honest, at times dry) work," yes, Areopagitica is all these things, and I learned—so it's a win. I've thought a lot about truth these past five weeks. Some things have been enlightening, and others are sad.
Your list of questions about what censorship is got me thinking. I think loose forms of censorship have different names like "gatekeeping," "manipulation," and "suppression" (as you mentioned). One new one I am considering is "branding." I think branding can be a form of censorship, which perhaps answers your questions about publishing.
I hear more and more about boutique publishing houses that only publish specific works that fit their brand. We see branding everywhere. Some Influencers don't share certain aspects of their lives because they don't match their brand. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but it is interesting to consider whether it is a form of censorship.
When my husband and I raised support years ago to go to Central America, some churches would not even meet with us because we were not going to the 10/40 window or a part of their mission "pet project." In other words, we didn't fit their church's mission brand. This is where it gets sticky for me when dealing with Christian institutions, companies, or ministries. There must be room for the Holy Spirit to lead and guide decision-making. Sure, a certain book, person, or ministry idea may not fit into their company or church "mission," but have they stopped to pray and consider that maybe there's an exception? This is where my brain went. :-)
It's really interesting to bring branding into the equation, Mel. It is, if you don't mind my saying, a cynical take on "mission." Not that cynicism isn't warranted! Indeed it is. But I do believe organizations (large or small, of all kinds) do need to have missions/definitions. How or when that turns into "branding" is a great question. But I definitely don't think a publisher that serves a certain audience (no one can serve everyone) and has a mission is just "branding" by doing so. As a writer, I would not want to be published by a publisher who doesn't reach an audience like mine (just as they wouldn't want to publish me.) But I think what you are getting at is that missions can become brands--and that is not good, especially when we are talking about ministries.
Heh, I don’t think I meant it as cynical as it read, but, I agree, it is. I think it’s an overflow of where my head is at right now. I agree that missions statements are good and necessary. I’ve served in/ experienced spaces where mission has turned to branding and it was hurtful, ineffective, and lacked consideration for the good work people were doing. And really, I don’t know much about the publishing world to comment on it. I appreciate your insight.
I have loved this series and the timely questions it raises. I’m indebted to you for creating a forum to examine literature that doesn’t see much light these days.
I agree that government censorship is the most dangerous threat to free speech. Equal to it are university speech codes that ironically both limit and compel student and faculty speech in a place intended for the exploration of truth.
Compelled speech by government is also an issue. In Britain you are arrested for praying silently on a sidewalk, in Colorado your business is threatened if you won’t put certain messages on a cake.
I want to say more about truth vs Truth, but I need to think a bit more.
I've been seeing some of those stories from Britain. And the "compelled speech" is another -- related -- issue!
I have a long history myself of protest, etc. A student club I was part sued my university and won a settlement when they suppressed our speech. That was a long time ago, but I have a very long history, as I said, on this issue. It makes me tired most days.
Karen, I have been reading a translation of Miguel de Cervantes' 'Don Quixote', and I came across this passage, which I though was a hilarious counterpoint to John Milton's argument. Cervantes would have died when Milton was about 10. Cervantes was from Spain, and was a critic of the Inquisition, but then he is not necessarily speaking in his own voice in this passage - Cervantes is a nimble genius and in the many debates of Don Quixote, argues both sides with equal fervour. The speaker is Don Quixote's priest, who has at some expense retrieved Don Quixote from his mad adventures and is taking him back home in a cage - Don Quixote is under the firm belief he undergoing some form of enchanted captivity. The priest has been telling a fellow traveller about Don Quixote's madness, and they have been discussing the problem of fictional and fantastical details in old historical epics and plays, and the harm such made up details might do to the reader or spectator's ideas of truth:
"All which evils, and many more that I say nothing of, would be removed if there were some intelligent and sensible person at the capital to examine all plays before they were acted, not only those produced in the capital itself, but all that were intended to be acted in Spain; without whose approval, seal, and signature, no local magistracy should allow any play to be acted. In that case actors would take care to send their plays to the capital, and could act them in safety, and those who write them would be more careful and take more pains with their work, standing in awe of having to submit it to the strict examination of one who understood the matter; and so good plays would be produced and the objects they aim at happily attained; as well the amusement of the people, as the credit of the wits of Spain, the interest and safety of the actors, and the saving of trouble in inflicting punishment on them. And if the same or some other person were authorised to examine the newly written books of chivalry, no doubt some would appear with all the perfections you have described, enriching our language with the gracious and precious treasure of eloquence, and driving the old books into obscurity before the light of the new ones that would come out for the harmless entertainment, not merely of the idle but of the very busiest; for the bow cannot be always bent, nor can weak human nature exist without some lawful amusement.”
This really is hilarious! Don Quixote is so good! I am not sure I've read the entire thing, but I need to do so. I fell in love with the story as a child and had a children's version and have read from it a great deal over the years. I really need to sit down and read it cover to cover. These questions were certainly in the air over these decades.
Trusting that the truth will out, without my interference, is difficult for me. I am learning not to let my anxiety drive me into what is the exclusive purview of our Sovereign God. The outcome is promised. The process is just so messy.
Yes, this is what I was thinking. The outcome is promised. But when remains up in the air. I think I used to be more optimistic about that outcome taking place in the intellectual process of reasoning and debate. Those were more innocent times when I had more trust in that process.
Another example I meant to include but forgot is TikTok— is banning a social media platform censorship? It certainly comes close or is. On the other hand, if it really is connected to international security issues because of the ownership of the platform that seems like a legitimate cause for concern that transcends censorship. This one in particular has me thinking.
On your censorship questions, I think most of them could be grouped under two answers:
1. Exercising restraint is not censorship. Rather it is acting for the protection of others from possible harm. Deliberately exposing young children to sexually explicit material is sexual abuse, and it is deeply damaging to their mind and emotions. This is also true about exposing children to violence on screen - I have seen how even comedic cartoon violence can cause a young child to cry in genuine fear and distress. The same principle of doing no harm goes in exercising self-restraint in what one says - we don't make certain jokes in the presence of someone who is grieving, for example. The ability to control the tongue, James says, is a sign of maturity.
2. Humans are not infinite. There is a limit to what can be read, stocked on shelves, or funded. There might be good or bad reasons for what is chosen to be read, stocked, or funded,and if the reasons are bad, then there are ways of advocating for better reasoning. But limitations in time, space, and resources are simply part of being human, and thus not evidence, in and of themselves, of censorship.
Yes, totally agree. Another thought I had while writing this but just couldn't find the words or time to develop it is when books/materials are removed (rather than never chosen in the first place). That brings suppression of something already there into play (not censorship). And I'm not saying things shouldn't be removed but simply that it's a different can of worms at that point and brings more questions into play--process, players, motivations, etc.
I posted on my social media just now that I learned today that the price of a postage stamp is now 73 cents. Someone replied by asking me for my source … wow. We are in big trouble regarding truth!
Thank you Karen for another in a series of thoughtful reflection on this work. I have them all printed and am able to return to them and consider them as a whole.
In this latest instalment you say, I wonder now more than ever if truth is in danger of being starved to death.
Perhaps. But I wonder along with you if truth faces two other more common threats.
First, my sense is truth may die not from hunger but from lack of exercise. From my chair I see so few clear and compelling declarations of truth. Instead I see cautions, complaints and concerns but few few bold voices who say, there is an alternative view and it sounds like this.
Second, truth may die from concealment in the desire to make it relevant. I see lots of examples of making the truth “ relevant” but dressing it up in the language of common culture and easy platitudes. As I read the Gospels I see Jesus making powerful truth claims through contrast. How often does he say, you have heard it said, but I say this. It is no accident that Jesus proclaims that when we know the truth it will set us free.
I agree with JeviecO above who notes that the process is messy. It is also full of risk. Jesus knew that and asked us to Fear Not!
My thoughts for today provoked by the gift of your time and insights.
Roger
Roger, your comment has me really thinking about what the best metaphor is for what is happening to truth in our day right now ... I like yours. They certainly do capture something different and perhaps truer. Milton pictures Truth and Falsehood as grappling/wrestling, sort of one-on-one. I think Truth now is being beset by gangs of Falsehoods! Even buried or drowning in them. That's what makes it hard to see her "winning" any time soon.
I'm grateful for your words and insights here--and for reading along.
The picture of ‘Truth’ being scattered to the winds intrigues me. What sustains me is the assurance that when Christ returns He will indeed gather all the pieces of Truth and pull everything together (Colossians 1:17).
It is such a powerful and moving picture to me. Always has been. And I think I had more faith in our ability in this world as reasonable, well-intended human beings to recover and re-assemble more of the pieces than I do now. I know He will gather all those pieces in the end. But it sure seems like we are collectively scattering them more now in these times. Sobering. But it helps to know He will do it.
Two observations regarding Milton's arguments.
First, like most Protestants of his day, he confounds church and state - it was the Baptist non-comfaists, not the Protestants, who argued for separation of church and state. He is talking to Parliament about building the Church! He claims the status of Jesus' city on a hill for England, with arguments of exceptionalism now more associated with the U.S. But Jesus' city on a hill wasn't any one nation, it was whoever followed him, it was the Church universal.
Second, Milton personifies Truth as the companion of Christ, but Jesus didn't claim to bring Truth, he claimed to be Truth. "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life", Jesus said to Martha in John 11. In watching untruths take such firm hold both generally and in specific instances I have witnessed personally in the past few years, I have been reminded of one of the darkest warnings of the Apostle Paul:
"They perish because they did not accept the love of the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a strong delusion so that they will believe the lie..." (II Thessalonians 2:10-11). In the personal cases I have witnessed, among people who claimed Christianity, I have seen heretical beliefs regarding Christ accompany belief in other popular untruths. The Bible makes it clear, from the first lie in the Garden, to the final condemnation of liars in Revelation, lies are demonic. The battle for Truth is spiritual, and so, as Paul also says, in Ephesians 5:1, our weapons are not worldly or material, but spiritual - truth, righteousness, and the Gospel of peace - and our enemies are not other humans who are duped, but the spirit of lies.
I think you are right, Holly. I think I was projecting onto my reading of Milton an equation of Truth with Jesus when he rather seems to say (as you state) that Truth accompanied Jesus ... I'm going to have to think about that more and see where/why I read it differently and perhaps incorrectly.
And he definitely confounds church and state--which is interesting given so many who claim Baptist identity today are wanting to do the same again.
I want to quibble a bit with respect to your comment that "Milton personifies Truth as the companion of Christ, but Jesus... claimed to be Truth." Quite right on both counts, but I would point out Paul in Romans 1:19-20: "19 They [unbelievers] know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. 20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature." I would say that the created world is a companion of Christ that is meant, among many other things, to point us to the LORD.
Creation is full of what I would call little truths, because Creation cannot have a nature contrary to the Creator, who is Truth. Jesus' claim to be the way, truth, and life is meant to point us to himself as the embodiment of what is eternally true, but there are many things that are true temporally and for this age that are consequences of how our rational God constructed the world. In that sense I would say such things as scientific law, mathematical proofs, and the whole realm of discovery about how creation and creatures are built and function are truths that are companions of Christ in that they are intrinsic to God's creation handiwork but are quite separate from God himself. They point to God, but are not God; they are distinct from the eternal moral Truth that is expressed in the character of God, but they exist as a consequence of God's hand in and over creation.
Milton is interested in protecting writing that corrects error about the nature of God and faith, but also, in promoting writing that will help men and women uncover important truths about the nature of the created world God placed us in. His many statements about errors fomented by the church make him eager to protect the faith from corruption, but he is just as eager to see human knowledge in general flourish and truth of all sorts applied to the betterment of society.
This is so helpful, Charlie. Thank you. And o realize now that often when I use the phrase “capital T Truth” I mean, not Christ, but eternal absolute Truth. So there is truth, Truth, and Christ-as-Truth. Distinct and yet all pointing the same way. Some of this is the limitation of our language. Some the limitation of our modern way of reading and categorizing. And some the limitation of being human.
I am still mulling.
I agree that the Creation has truth to be learned - as Paul said in his address to the Athenians on the Areopagus and his letter to the Colossians, the truth of Creation is Christ's. But the truth of Creation can be misused without the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Truth. Jesus pointed out to the religious leaders of his day that their scientific observations of the weather signs in the sky were accurate but they still couldn't see who Jesus was.
The cases I know personally where professing Christians seem to be embracing both heretical theology and popular untruths, the popular untruths are ones that question scientific advancements in medicine, such as vaccines, and call into doubt historical records, such as the Holocaust. These individuals deliberately question what previous generations considered established truth and automatically seek out alternate explanations (their questioning habits were established before the beginning of the recent pandemic, and they lost no time in seeking out alternate explanations for that - I might add that neither I nor these individuals are in the U.S. so American politics were not a motivating factor). Yet these individuals would call themselves conservative Christians, they regularly attend church, believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2, are for traditional male and female roles both inside and outside the church - they also are interested in the ideas of Christian nationalism. As Paul put it (II Timothy 3:5), they have a form of godliness, but, to the horror of their family members, they seem to be denying its power.
It is ironic. In my childhood in conservative Baptist circles, we were taught the spiritual threat to the Truth comes from the opposite side of the religious spectrum, the nominal Christians who are liberal in theology and progressive in ideology and are tolerant of things the Bible condemned, and who put science before the Bible in believing the theory of evolution. Yet that is not where the threat to Truth has arisen.
A sad, tragic irony from which I’m not sure I will ever recover.
I'm sorry Karen. Surviving ATI toughened me up a bit for this wider blow, but it still cost my parents and I a church we had fellowshiped with for three decades and left lingering familial heartache.
Just makes me seek Jesus more. 🙏
*non-Conformists
*Ephesians 5:10-18
"I know it is a more difficult, intense (and let’s be honest, at times dry) work," yes, Areopagitica is all these things, and I learned—so it's a win. I've thought a lot about truth these past five weeks. Some things have been enlightening, and others are sad.
Your list of questions about what censorship is got me thinking. I think loose forms of censorship have different names like "gatekeeping," "manipulation," and "suppression" (as you mentioned). One new one I am considering is "branding." I think branding can be a form of censorship, which perhaps answers your questions about publishing.
I hear more and more about boutique publishing houses that only publish specific works that fit their brand. We see branding everywhere. Some Influencers don't share certain aspects of their lives because they don't match their brand. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but it is interesting to consider whether it is a form of censorship.
When my husband and I raised support years ago to go to Central America, some churches would not even meet with us because we were not going to the 10/40 window or a part of their mission "pet project." In other words, we didn't fit their church's mission brand. This is where it gets sticky for me when dealing with Christian institutions, companies, or ministries. There must be room for the Holy Spirit to lead and guide decision-making. Sure, a certain book, person, or ministry idea may not fit into their company or church "mission," but have they stopped to pray and consider that maybe there's an exception? This is where my brain went. :-)
It's really interesting to bring branding into the equation, Mel. It is, if you don't mind my saying, a cynical take on "mission." Not that cynicism isn't warranted! Indeed it is. But I do believe organizations (large or small, of all kinds) do need to have missions/definitions. How or when that turns into "branding" is a great question. But I definitely don't think a publisher that serves a certain audience (no one can serve everyone) and has a mission is just "branding" by doing so. As a writer, I would not want to be published by a publisher who doesn't reach an audience like mine (just as they wouldn't want to publish me.) But I think what you are getting at is that missions can become brands--and that is not good, especially when we are talking about ministries.
Heh, I don’t think I meant it as cynical as it read, but, I agree, it is. I think it’s an overflow of where my head is at right now. I agree that missions statements are good and necessary. I’ve served in/ experienced spaces where mission has turned to branding and it was hurtful, ineffective, and lacked consideration for the good work people were doing. And really, I don’t know much about the publishing world to comment on it. I appreciate your insight.
I have loved this series and the timely questions it raises. I’m indebted to you for creating a forum to examine literature that doesn’t see much light these days.
I agree that government censorship is the most dangerous threat to free speech. Equal to it are university speech codes that ironically both limit and compel student and faculty speech in a place intended for the exploration of truth.
Compelled speech by government is also an issue. In Britain you are arrested for praying silently on a sidewalk, in Colorado your business is threatened if you won’t put certain messages on a cake.
I want to say more about truth vs Truth, but I need to think a bit more.
I've been seeing some of those stories from Britain. And the "compelled speech" is another -- related -- issue!
I have a long history myself of protest, etc. A student club I was part sued my university and won a settlement when they suppressed our speech. That was a long time ago, but I have a very long history, as I said, on this issue. It makes me tired most days.
I have a crazy question: was David French your lawyer?
Haha! Not a crazy question but no. This was so long ago…I bet he wasn’t even in law school yet! 😂
I haven’t commented before now, but I have enjoyed this series! I pray you are right that “truth will out.” Things are awfully bleak right now.
They really are bleak right now.
Thank you for reading--and commenting! :)
Karen, I have been reading a translation of Miguel de Cervantes' 'Don Quixote', and I came across this passage, which I though was a hilarious counterpoint to John Milton's argument. Cervantes would have died when Milton was about 10. Cervantes was from Spain, and was a critic of the Inquisition, but then he is not necessarily speaking in his own voice in this passage - Cervantes is a nimble genius and in the many debates of Don Quixote, argues both sides with equal fervour. The speaker is Don Quixote's priest, who has at some expense retrieved Don Quixote from his mad adventures and is taking him back home in a cage - Don Quixote is under the firm belief he undergoing some form of enchanted captivity. The priest has been telling a fellow traveller about Don Quixote's madness, and they have been discussing the problem of fictional and fantastical details in old historical epics and plays, and the harm such made up details might do to the reader or spectator's ideas of truth:
"All which evils, and many more that I say nothing of, would be removed if there were some intelligent and sensible person at the capital to examine all plays before they were acted, not only those produced in the capital itself, but all that were intended to be acted in Spain; without whose approval, seal, and signature, no local magistracy should allow any play to be acted. In that case actors would take care to send their plays to the capital, and could act them in safety, and those who write them would be more careful and take more pains with their work, standing in awe of having to submit it to the strict examination of one who understood the matter; and so good plays would be produced and the objects they aim at happily attained; as well the amusement of the people, as the credit of the wits of Spain, the interest and safety of the actors, and the saving of trouble in inflicting punishment on them. And if the same or some other person were authorised to examine the newly written books of chivalry, no doubt some would appear with all the perfections you have described, enriching our language with the gracious and precious treasure of eloquence, and driving the old books into obscurity before the light of the new ones that would come out for the harmless entertainment, not merely of the idle but of the very busiest; for the bow cannot be always bent, nor can weak human nature exist without some lawful amusement.”
This really is hilarious! Don Quixote is so good! I am not sure I've read the entire thing, but I need to do so. I fell in love with the story as a child and had a children's version and have read from it a great deal over the years. I really need to sit down and read it cover to cover. These questions were certainly in the air over these decades.
Trusting that the truth will out, without my interference, is difficult for me. I am learning not to let my anxiety drive me into what is the exclusive purview of our Sovereign God. The outcome is promised. The process is just so messy.
Yes, this is what I was thinking. The outcome is promised. But when remains up in the air. I think I used to be more optimistic about that outcome taking place in the intellectual process of reasoning and debate. Those were more innocent times when I had more trust in that process.
Another example I meant to include but forgot is TikTok— is banning a social media platform censorship? It certainly comes close or is. On the other hand, if it really is connected to international security issues because of the ownership of the platform that seems like a legitimate cause for concern that transcends censorship. This one in particular has me thinking.
On your censorship questions, I think most of them could be grouped under two answers:
1. Exercising restraint is not censorship. Rather it is acting for the protection of others from possible harm. Deliberately exposing young children to sexually explicit material is sexual abuse, and it is deeply damaging to their mind and emotions. This is also true about exposing children to violence on screen - I have seen how even comedic cartoon violence can cause a young child to cry in genuine fear and distress. The same principle of doing no harm goes in exercising self-restraint in what one says - we don't make certain jokes in the presence of someone who is grieving, for example. The ability to control the tongue, James says, is a sign of maturity.
2. Humans are not infinite. There is a limit to what can be read, stocked on shelves, or funded. There might be good or bad reasons for what is chosen to be read, stocked, or funded,and if the reasons are bad, then there are ways of advocating for better reasoning. But limitations in time, space, and resources are simply part of being human, and thus not evidence, in and of themselves, of censorship.
Yes, totally agree. Another thought I had while writing this but just couldn't find the words or time to develop it is when books/materials are removed (rather than never chosen in the first place). That brings suppression of something already there into play (not censorship). And I'm not saying things shouldn't be removed but simply that it's a different can of worms at that point and brings more questions into play--process, players, motivations, etc.