In May 1998, someone read my Animal Farm paper in its original online form but took issue with the fact that the author (me) was a Christian. I had tacked on a preface to the paper but couldn't for the life of me remember what it said.

Thanks to the Wayback Machine at the Internet Archive I was able to find the long-lost paragraph that upset my email interlocutor. Here is the offending text:

Orwell was convinced that totalitarianism was twentieth-century man's greatest enemy, but the real problem is the one that has plagued mankind through the ages: sin. The only solution is the Cross.

After I digested his comments, I decided to try my hand at a little online Reformed apologetics. But since this was impersonal email, I could afford to take my time to craft what I hope were winsome statements. This is the one and only time I've ever been involved in such an online exchange (probably because I removed the preface soon after).

Here is our correspondence. I edited some of my responses (but not his), removed names to protect the innocent, and took the liberty to modify line lengths for the sake of readability.

1st Message

Subject: afarm paper
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 00:01:49 EDT
From: HIM
To: ME

not a bad paper. Too bad about your latest phase. How many sins were created in the name of christianity? What about moses in afarm? Didn't that whole candy after-life mean anything to you? It was to keep the animals content with a miserable life on earth--keep them working. Sounds a lot like the puffy clouds of heaven to me. Support the regime, and you'll go to the golden gates. How boring....

Orwell was condemning more than just corruption in Government.

1st Reply

Subject: Re: afarm paper
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 01:03:25 -0400
From: ME
To: HIM

How many sins were created in the name of christianity?

I wholeheartedly agree that many evil deeds were and are still being done in the name of Christ. However, those sins (the Crusades and the Inquisition, to name just two) were perpetrated by unbelievers, *non*-Christians. A true Christian, one who is "a new creation" (2 Corinthians 5:17), could never willingly participate in such monstrous acts of evil.

What about moses in afarm? Didn't that whole candy after-life mean anything to you? It was to keep the animals content with a miserable life on earth--keep them working. Sounds a lot like the puffy clouds of heaven to me. Support the regime, and you'll go to the golden gates. How boring....

In a sense you're right (except for the boring part). This present life, to a Christian, can't even compare with eternal life in Heaven. The Apostle Paul said, "to live is Christ, and to die is gain" (Philippians 1:21). If I may take literary license for a moment, if the animals in the story were saved, then it wouldn't matter what the pigs promised, and it wouldn't matter what the pigs did to them, because God has ordained that they suffer for Christ's sake (Philippians 1:29), and in any case, their reward is in Heaven, not on the farm, and certainly not through some mythical "golden gate".

Real Christians don't pin their hopes on man (or pigs), don't care if they're treated miserably (like the animals), work hard because they do it all for the glory of God, and obey the "regime" because "there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God" (Romans 13:1).

One could be excused for thinking Orwell was describing the persecution of "Christian" animals at the hands of "Christ-rejecting" pigs.

Orwell was condemning more than just corruption in Government.

Absolutely. But Orwell was an atheist. According to the Bible, as an unbeliever he was not even capable of understanding true religion. As 1 Corinthians 2:14 says, "but the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." Thus he painted all Christians, real and fake, with the same brush.

2nd Message

Subject: Re: afarm paper
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 19:42:25 EDT
From: HIM
To: ME

Whatever makes life bearable for you....

The only thing I would take issue with is that an atheist can not understand religion. Orwell understood religion about as well as anybody. The roots of religion are based in philosophical questions about our existence and purpose. As a writer concerned with the human condition, Orwell must have contemplated these questions and concluded what Plato concluded: the truly wise man knows he knows nothing. A virtuous and wise man will live to philosophize about his life knowing he will probably never find an answer.

2nd Reply

Subject: Re: afarm paper
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 23:39:44 -0400
From: ME
To: HIM

The only thing I would take issue with is that an atheist can not understand religion. Orwell understood religion about as well as anybody. The roots of religion are based in philosophical questions about our existence and purpose. As a writer concerned with the human condition, Orwell must have contemplated these questions and concluded what Plato concluded: the truly wise man knows he knows nothing. A virtuous and wise man will live to philosophize about his life knowing he will probably never find an answer.

I have to disagree. Let me quote Romans 1:18-22a, 28a:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of man, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools... And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind...

*All* men know there is a God. What we choose to do with that knowledge determines if we are truly wise. Proverbs 9:10 says:

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

Proverbs 2:3-6 says:

Yes, if you cry out for discernment, And lift up your voice for understanding, If you seek her as silver, And search for her as for hidden treasures; Then you will understand the fear of the Lord, And find the knowledge of God. For the Lord gives wisdom; From His mouth come knowledge and understanding.

The Book of Acts finds the Apostle Paul in Athens (of all places) at the Areopagus, speaking to a group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. This is what he said to them (in part):

... they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said ... (Acts 17:27-28)

A truly "virtuous and wise man" is one who seeks God and *knows* he will find answers to his questions.

Man seeks answers from many places, but Scripture says:

There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death. (Proverbs 16:25)

I am praying that God will reveal Himself to you through His Word (the Bible), the only true wisdom from the only wise God (1 Timothy 1:17).

3rd Message

Subject: Re: afarm paper
Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 09:06:50 EDT
From: HIM
To: ME

Hey Paul (interesting name),

Of course Paul (from the new testament) said the philosophers should seek the lord. Philosohpy is hard to understand after a few million volts have passed through your neurons. He used to be a sword swinging warrior, he was struck by lightning and survived, but probably with brain damage. For some reason, Paul became very phobic of sexual expression. He wrote some interesting literature, though, but, to quote an old professor of mine, comparing the new testament to the old testament is like comparing Aesop's Fables to Homer's Epics.

You have a very cyclical logic that's difficult to argue with. Every time one refutes or challenges an idea, you quote from the philosophy that's being challenged. The discussion goes nowhere.

3rd Reply

Subject: Re: afarm paper
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 00:06:00 -0400
From: ME
To: HIM

Of course Paul (from the new testament) said the philosophers should seek the lord. Philosohpy is hard to understand after a few million volts have passed through your neurons. He used to be a sword swinging warrior, he was struck by lightning and survived, but probably with brain damage.

Not entirely correct. The Book of Acts describes Paul's experience on the Damascus Road this way:

As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shown around him from heaven. Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persec- uting me?" And he said, "Who are You, Lord?" Then the Lord said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads." So he, trembling and astonish- ed, said, "Lord, what do You want me to do?" Then the Lord said to him, "Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do." And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one. Then Saul arose from the ground, and when his eyes were opened, he saw no one. But they led him by the hand and brought him to Damascus. And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank. (Acts 9:3-9)

The light that blinded Paul was not lightning, but a supernatural light brighter than the sun: Jesus Christ in His resurrected glory.

Paul later received his sight (physical and spiritual), and:

Immediately he preached the Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God. Then all who heard were amazed, and said, "Is this not he who destroyed those who called on this name in Jerusalem, and has come here for that purpose, so that he bring them bound to the chief priests?" But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who dwelt in Damascus, proving this Jesus is the Christ. (Acts 9:20-22)

This doesn't sound someone with brain damage. This sounds like someone who had a life-changing experience and spent the rest of his life telling people about it.

He wrote some interesting literature, though, but, to quote an old professor of mine, comparing the new testament to the old testament is like comparing Aesop's Fables to Homer's Epics.

No, the Old points to the New, and the New completes the Old.

Perhaps your professor never pondered the many Old Testament prophecies concerning the Christ that were fulfilled in the New, nor the fact that the New Testament is filled with direct quotes, paraphrases, and allusions to the Old, nor that Jesus Himself, after His resurrection, spoke to the two travelers on the road to Emmaus this way:

"O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffer- ed these things and to enter into His glory?" And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." (Luke 24:25-27)

You have a very cyclical logic that's difficult to argue with. Every time one refutes or challenges an idea, you quote from the philosophy that's being challenged. The discussion goes nowhere.

You're absolutely right. My logic *is* circular. Let me quote from Wayne Grudem's "Systematic Theology" (Zondervan, 1994), pp. 78-79:

Someone may object that to say Scripture proves itself to be God's words is to use a circular argument: we believe that Scripture is God's Word because it claims to be that. And we believe its claims because Scripture is God's Word. And we believe that it is God's Word because it claims to be that, and so forth.

It should be admitted that this is a kind of circular argument. However, that does not make its use invalid, for all arguments for an absolute authority must ultimately appeal to that authority for proof: otherwise the authority would not be an absolute or highest authority. The problem is not unique to the Christian who is arguing for the authority of the Bible. Everyone implicitly or explicitly uses some kind of circular argument when defending his or her ultimate authority for belief.

Although these circular arguments are not always made explicit and are sometimes hidden beneath lengthy discussions or are simply assumed without proof, arguments for an ultimate authority in their most basic form take on a similar circular appeal to that authority itself, as some of the following examples show:

"My reason is my ultimate authority because it seems reasonable to me to make it so."

"Logical consistency is my ultimate authority because it is logical to make it so."

"The findings of human sensory experiences are the ultimate authority for discovering what is real and what is not, because our human senses have never dis- covered anything else: thus, human sense experience tells me that my principle is true."

"I know there can be no ultimate authority because I do not know of any such ultimate authority."

In all of these arguments for an ultimate standard of truth, an absolute authority for what to believe, there is an element of circularity involved.

How then does a Christian, or anyone else, choose among the various claims for absolute authorities? Ultimately the truthfulness of the Bible will commend itself as being far more persuasive than other religious books, or any other intellectual constructions of the human mind. It will be more persuasive because in the actual experience of life, all of these other candidates for ultimate authority are seen to be inconsistent or to have shortcomings that dis- qualify them, while the Bible will be seen to be fully in accord with all that we know about the world around us, about ourselves, and about God.

The Bible will commend itself as being persuasive in this way, that is, if we are thinking rightly about the nature of reality, our perception of it and of ourselves, and our perception of God. The trouble is that because of sin our perception and analysis of God and creation is faulty. Sin is ultimately irrational, and sin makes us think incorrectly about God and about creation. ... But because sin distorts people's perception of reality, they do not recognize Scripture for what it really is. Therefore it requires the work of the Holy Spirit, overcoming the effects of sin, to enable us to be persuaded that the Bible is indeed the Word of God and that the claims it makes for itself are true.

Yes, I'm afraid this discussion will go nowhere because our respective standards of authority are different. What you call "philosophy" I call absolute truth.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed... (Romans 1:16-17a)

Final Message

Subject: Re: afarm paper
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 16:37:08 EDT
From: HIM
To: ME

In a message dated 98-05-20 00:03:35 EDT, you write:

<< Yes, I'm afraid this discussion will go nowhere because our respective standards of authority are different. >>

Bingo. I believe it was lightning because that is more scientifically plausible. You believe it was the supernatural light of Christ because your Bible states that. Since neither of us were there to see it, or to witness Paul's injuries (if any), or to evaluate Paul's behavior before and after his encounter with the light (or lightning), the we have to fall back on an assumption. My assumptions [are] scientific. I also draw similar conclusions with regard to visions. usually, visions are the products of a strenuous experience such as sitting in the desert without water. The Lakota Sioux dig a vision pit and sit until they meet their animal spirit. Many do, but it's probably a result of hallucinations brought on by fatique. Getting struck by lightning would certainly cause fatigue. The beauty of Lakota visions is they rarely castigate anyone who doesn't believe in it. Spirituality is personal.

As for Old testament prophecies coming true in the new Testament, anyone can make a prophecy come true if they're creating the story fifty years after it was supposed to have happened. Who is going to remember any inconsistencies in the story?

<< Perhaps your professor never pondered the many Old Testament prophecies concerning the Christ that were fulfilled in the New, nor the fact that the New Testament is filled with direct quotes, paraphrases, and allusions to the Old, nor that Jesus Himself, >>

This professor studied on a grant at Harvard both the Old and New Testaments. He had very little respect for anyone who claimed to be an authority and couldn't read Latin. He studied inconsistencies in English translations, styles of different authors, and compared time periods of various passages. Matching prophecies in the old and new testaments would be a bit rudimentary for his level, but I'm sure he was aware of them.

Anyway, as you suggest, we're looking at this through two completely different windows to reality. IT's a lot like my experience at a recent funeral. In my mind, my friend is now fertilizer. (scientific) He's returned to the Earth, and I think that's a beautiful thing. In his family's mind, he's flying around in heaven. To them, that's beautiful. They would dislike my vision, and I dislike theirs. But mine works for me and thiers works for them.

Postscript

At this point, I gave up. I wanted to point out that Latin wasn't an original biblical language, but it wouldn't have made any difference.

I never told him that I myself used to play the part of the atheist in conversations with other Christians. And just when you think you have it all figured out, God hits you (me, and God willing, HIM) with a bolt of lightning (figuratively speaking of course :-)