Back to previous page. Page 31
"[...] reality is neither the subject nor the object of true art which creates its own special reality having nothing to do with the average "reality" perceived by the communal eye."
Vladimir Nabokov - "Pale Fire"
Yesterday, I read with interest the thread at: Click Here
Baddad wrote something truly wonderful and memorable in the thread on "To Kill A Mockingbird:"
Words are power. Fifty years after this book is released a poignant and relative discussion continues on this very forum. Shock, dismay, confusion, and in someways a sense of ugliness/evil, all stemming from the use of a single word, still reverberate within those astute enough to strive for meaningful social change. In an increasingly stubborn world I cheer to find thus-minded souls. The author intended you to care, wanted to drag the ugliness into to the light where it could be shamed and destroyed. This intent, and its success, is one of the keys to this great piece of literature.
The phrase "to drag the ugliness into the light" reminded me of an interesting passage in Plato's "Republic:"
Leontius, the son of Aglaion, was going up from the Piraeus under the outside of the North Wall when he noticed corpses lying by the public executioner. He desired to look, but at the same time he was disgusted and made himself turn away; and for a while he struggled and covered his face. But finally, overpowered by the desire, he opened his eyes wide, ran toward the corpses and said (to his own eyes) 'LOOK, you damned wretches, take your fill of the fair sight.'This certainly indicates that anger sometimes makes war against the desires (within us) as one thing against something else. Republic, 440a
Plato's comment about anger making war with other desires, within us, reminds me of one verse from Psalm 4, which is more correctly translated from the Greek Septuagint than from the King James:
Be angry, and sin not; feel compunction upon your beds (weep upon your beds) for what you say in your heart
Ancient theologians point to such anger as a form of "righteous" anger which has some positive moral value, as opposed to anger which is simply a character flaw.
As a child, I carried to school a lunch box with a scene of a brave and noble looking Davy Crockett confronting a sinister and evil looking Indian with a knife. I still have that lunch box to this day, on my bookshelf. Only years later, as and adult, did I understand that it was Davy Crockett who was evil and sinister, a thief and murderer, and the Indian who was nobly defending his home and family and livelyhood.
I have never read the novel "To Kill A Mockingbird", so I went to www.sparknotes.com and reviewed their synopsis.
I was most curious about the meaning of the novel's title, "To Kill a Mockingbird."
To quote sparknotes:
The title of To Kill a Mockingbird has very little literal connection to the plot, but it carries a great deal of symbolic weight in the book. In this story of innocents destroyed by evil, the “mockingbird” comes to represent the idea of innocence. Thus, to kill a mockingbird is to destroy innocence. Throughout the book, a number of characters (Jem, Tom Robinson, Dill, Boo Radley, Mr. Raymond) can be identified as mockingbirds—innocents who have been injured or destroyed through contact with evil. This connection between the novel’s title and its main theme is made explicit several times in the novel: after Tom Robinson is shot, Mr. Underwood compares his death to “the senseless slaughter of songbirds,” and at the end of the book Scout thinks that hurting Boo Radley would be like “shootin’ a mockingbird.” Most important, Miss Maudie explains to Scout: “Mockingbirds don’t do one thing but . . . sing their hearts out for us. That’s why it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.” That Jem and Scout’s last name is Finch (another type of small bird) indicates that they are particularly vulnerable in the racist world of Maycomb, which often treats the fragile innocence of childhood harshly.
As the novel progresses, the children’s changing attitude toward Boo Radley is an important measurement of their development from innocence toward a grown-up moral perspective. At the beginning of the book, Boo is merely a source of childhood superstition. As he leaves Jem, and Scout presents and mends Jem’s pants, he gradually becomes increasingly and intriguingly real to them. At the end of the novel, he becomes fully human to Scout, illustrating that she has developed into a sympathetic and understanding individual. Boo, an intelligent child ruined by a cruel father, is one of the book’s most important mockingbirds; he is also an important symbol of the good that exists within people. Despite the pain that Boo has suffered, the purity of his heart rules his interaction with the children. In saving Jem and Scout from Bob Ewell, Boo proves the ultimate symbol of good.
I was stunned by a sudden, most curious thought:
"What if Boo is God?"
Woody Allen has one hilarious scene where he is standing in a long line outside of a theatre, arguing with someone about a statement made by Marshall McLuhan. Suddenly, Woody Allen says "Oh, yeah....well...." and he reaches over in the crowd and grabs the arm of Marshall McLuhan, who steps up and defends Woody's position in the argument.
Now, if I could grab hold of the arm of Harper Lee, and have her speak up and say "Oh yes, why.... certainly, Boo IS God in my novel, and I am pleased that someone has finally realized this and pointed it out!" that would certainly be the end of any arguments about Boo.
But suppose Ms. Lee were to laugh at the notion that Boo is God? Well, one might argue that it was her subconscious at work, or some Jungian archetype expressing itself.
But what might lead me to suspect that Boo is God?
Well, no one ever sees Boo until the end of the book. The word "Boo" is something which a ghost says. The Christian Trinity is comprised of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The children are fascinated by a house which they suspect is haunted, but haunted is just the flipside of the coin we call numinous. They speculate about the existence of "Boo." I am reminded of "Waiting For Godot."
But, here is one of three clinchers which I see. "Gifts" mysteriously appear for the children in the hollow of a tree. There is a verse from the Epistle of St. James which says: "Every GOOD gift and every PERFECT give is from above and comes down from Thee, the Father of Lights." Ancient theologians questioned, "what is the difference between a GOOD gift and a PERFECT gift." Well, those ancient theologians conclude that the good gifts are things like air, water, health, while the perfect gifts are things like the Eucharist (Communion of bread and wine.) To this day, Greek and Russian Orthodox refer to the bread and wine as "the gifts."
The second "clincher" for me how "Boo" suddenly appears or manifests in human form and puts himself at risk to save the children and slay the evil one. This is like Christ appearing in human form and suffering so that people may be delivered from evil.
The third "clincher" for me is the statement that the children finally mature in their understanding of good and evil in the world once they finally "know" Boo as a person, in a personal relationship. Protestants are fond of speaking about a "personal relationship" with Jesus.
It was actually the early Christians who contributed much to the "art" of symbolic analysis, whether one chooses to call it "Eisagesis" (reading a meaning into a passage which the author never meant to convey) or exagesis (pointing out a concealed meaning which readers are intended to find.) Obviously, during the first decades of the Christianity, it was considered by both the Jews and the Pagans to be a "new" innovation. Even in those time which, for us, are ancient times, people gave more value and credence to that which they perceived as ancient than to something new. Therefore, it was to the theologians' advantage to "analyze" the ancient scriptures and myths and demonstrate that Christianity was really most ancient, and concealed and hidden in ancient prophecy.
We may take as the following analysis of the story of Samson as a prime example of early Christian analytical techniques:
Book of Judges Ch. 13
An angel appears to a barren woman and tells her she shall conceive a son, Samson (Annunciation and Virgin Birth?).
The angel tells her that the child will be the deliverer of Israel (Messiah?).
Samson encounters a lion which he slays as easily as a lamb or kid (Lamb of God?).
And a few days later (3 days?), he comes to find 'honey in the carcass of the lion" (Eucharist?).
But it is a "secret" (Mystery?) so he gives it to his family to eat but does not tell them where it is really from.
Then he is betrayed (with a kiss?).
Then he is taken prisoner and mocked.
Then he "destroys the temple" so to speak with "his arms outstretched" (Crucifixion?).
There is an old seminary joke about a professor explaining the difference between exegesis and eisegesis: Exegesis, she said is a careful analytical study of scripture. Eisegesis is interpreting and applying the exegesis, as a preacher would do in a sermon. While the class discussion was continuing someone mumbled in the back of the room: “I don’t know nothin’ about exegesis and I don’t understand eisegesis. I just want to learn about Jesus!”
Well, what shall we say of my notion that "Boo is God?" One valid subjective stance to take is that if Boo is God for me, then that is my subjective experience, and it has a certain subjective validity.
When we read notions about Moby Dick being God for Melville, we find such notions far more credible, since Melville seems to work very hard making many allusions which would steer us in the direction of such a notion.
It is interesting to note that: Truman Capote published "In Cold Blood" with a dedication to Jack Dunphy and Harper Lee.
Originally Posted by Heretic
I have read "To kill a mocking bird", and while I did not think much about God, and the rest, I thought that the main message was how the society , steeped in a particular thought and tradition, does not see the injustice the culture brings to others under its thrall. Instead, they ,wanting to be "good and normal people" try to make excuses for the prejudices, and if anybody dares question them, is considered different(in this case-a 'n!gg@rlover'). Atticus is considered so only because he considered blacks to have the same rights as whites; instead of arguing about the strength or weakness of his argument, the community just brands him.
Here lies a lesson for all of us, especially Indians. Are we so much different from the people of Maycomb-indifferent to change, and covering their prejudices under the garb of religion and culture;in India any man questioning culture is eagerly branded a 'westerner' or 'pro-west' without meriting an argument; in many cases, that is the sole argument against his claims.
'To kill a mocking bird ' in the end is about an individual stressing his rights against society-the mocking bird might refer to the victims-they are actually serving as mirrors that show the society's prejudices and vices; so instead of pointing fingers and pushing them down, the society must try to question their traditions, otherwise they risk being in the dock for stifling freedom.
Remember-Socrates was condemned to die for 'encouraging the young men of Athens to question their ancient tradition'-sounds familiar to the way our society treats people who dare to question age-old practices?
Take care. Bye.
- Heretic
Perhaps I should mention that my own personal religious perspective is more Hindu and Buddhist than Judaeo-Christian. I mention that so you will not think that I have some ideological hidden agenda in what I post. I have spent the past 20 or more years reading and writing about all the various religious traditions of the world, comparing and contrasting them.
I have spend hundreds or perhaps thousands of hours over the past years on message boards and chat rooms, in yahoo and irc, and I note that many young people, especially those inclined to philosophy or science, are positively phobic about any mention of religion or a deity.
I hope to write more on this thread, and hear from others, in the coming weeks. I did some research into Truman Capote's dedication of his book to Harper Lee. Apparently, during Capote's life, he often hinted that he had in fact written large sections of "To Kill a Mockingbird." At least one editor of some reputation believed him. But then Capote seemed inclined to mendacity, alleging many and various things which were far-fetched.
Try to think of Christianity as a genre of literary analysis of the Old Testament. I think it was Augustine of the 4th century who said "The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed and the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed."
Of course, 2000 years of Jewish scholarship disagree with the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament as predicting a Messiah.
Well, I must post and close for now, as I have run out of time.
P.S. Perhaps the more profound question is not whether there is a real, palpable allusion to God in the novel, but why you feel so strongly about the matter. In the 1960s I read a delightful book by a professor of literature called "The Pooh Purplex" in which he demonstrated how "Winnie the Pooh" might be "interpreted" in so many different fashions, from Freudian Sexual to Humanitarian to Romantic to Existential.
Some posts re: Capote Clic k here
Harper Lee grew up and was close friends with Truman Capote. He intimated in an interview that he wrote (or at least rewrote) large portions of this book. If true, that would explain why she turned out to be a one hit wonder.
Whoever wrote it, one can't praise this book highly enough. It's a gem. Click here
I did just hear an intersting rumor that Harper Lee recieved a lot of help on this book from her childhood friend who spent almost every summer with her (a real life Dill). This person who helped her write her one and only novel is Truman Capote. Perhaps that explains a lot about why she only wrote one book, but it was a great one. Click here
At 77, she refuses interviews and makes few public appearances.
"I am still alive, though very quiet," she wrote in 1993 when asked to write a new introduction to "To Kill a Mockingbird."
She refused. "Please spare 'Mockingbird' an introduction. ... 'Mockingbird' still says what it has to say; it has managed to survive without preamble."
It has more than survived. Never out of print since it appeared in 1960 and won the Pulitzer Prize, Lee's only novel is a staple of school reading lists. http://www.shakespearefellowship.or...6793/Main/16469
I glean from a biography of Truman Capote that there is speculation that he may have written *To Kill A Mockingbird* and let Harper Lee (his hometown neighbor who never wrote anything else?) take the credit. Maybe it's just the sinister glee at the thought that Truman Capote, a vicious monstrous adversary (to people who as far as I can tell deserved it) dismissed as a clown figure is behind a classic that most high school students in the US have to read, but my cognitive (and perhaps personality) disorder(s) thrill at such illogical non-factoidism. Click here
As a boy, Truman lived next door to Harper Lee, and the two remained close friends and collaborators throughout their lives. There has even been speculation that Truman not only helped edit To Kill a Mockingbird, but actually wrote much of the book. This is no doubt mere rumor, but there is a similarity between Lee's great novel and "The Thanksgiving Visitor." Odd Henderson is reminiscent of Mr. Ewell, though he turns out to be far more sympathetic, and Truman, in his emotional confusion, bears some resemblance to Scout. But it is honest, decent Sook, who has the moral authority to inform every aspect of this story like Atticus Finch. And it is the intimate detail with which Capote recreates the character of his friend that lifts this story out of the realm of anecdote and into the realm of art. Click here
Capote was a lifelong friend of Monroeville neighbor Harper Lee, and was allegedly the inspiration for the character of Dill in her best-seller To Kill A Mockingbird. Capote frequently implied that he himself had written a considerable portion of her novel, and at least one person - Pearl Kazin Bell, an editor at Harper's - has gone on record as believing his assertions were true.
I was utterly shocked about the Capote controversy. Initially, I began searching when I first learned that Capoted had dedicated "In Cold Blood" to Harper Lee. Then I read the rumors about Capote having written some of "To Kill A Mockingbird." It would REALLY be shocking if Capote did write a lot of it and there ARE the allusions to Christianity which I perceived, since Capote hardly strikes me as someone who would go in for that sort of thing.
As rabbi Abraham Heschel, author of "The Prophets," wrote, "we must learn to understand what we see, and not simply see only what we understand."
I hope to begin a careful reading of "To Kill A Mockingbird" and I will very likely find certain tell-tale sentences and vocabulary if religious allusions were a conscious act on the author's part. If I do not find such signs, then I will assume it is simply coincidence that the narrative of "Boo Radley" accidentally resembles certain Christian themes. Do try to take a look at "The Pooh Purplex" if you can find it in print anywhere.
Scheherazade comments: "Finch is the maiden name of the author’s mother, and Cunningham is a name from her father’s side of the family. And etc." (http://www.shakespearefellowship.or...6793/Main/16469)
So maybe it is only a coincidence that the family name is another small bird (re. Boo Radley's quote in your first post)
Good point, regarding the Finch family name, and coincidence! I was thinking today of "the man in the moon," the face which we see in the moon as a good example of "reading into things." Everyone seems to agree that there is a face there, but we all know it is pure coincidence that the craters create that illusion. Yet, though we know it is an artefact, yet, for us, there is a "man in the moon" and the concept enjoys some measure of reality.
I just went to that "Sanctity of Unity" thread, and I forgot you had posted there.
Here is what catches my eye:
Originally Posted by Sitaram
Think about "unity." We study the "UNI"verse in a "UNIV"ersity where we constantly strive for a "G.U.T." (Grand Unifying Theory) Our various religions stress "MONO"theism, or the "UNITY" of the Trinity. Our government adopts the maxim "E Pluribus Unum" (From the many, one.) We preach a creed of one God, one faith, one baptism, one wife, one husband, one nation under God, indivisible, and so forth. My very deployment of the word "one" with such frequency becomes onerous to the reader. We even make "top ten lists" of novels and many other things, which implies that there is a NUMBER ONE at the top of the list. We speak of "the great American novel" implying that there is one, and only one. It is amusing to note that, even though we have TWO eyes and TWO ears and TWO cerebral hemispheres, yet we experience only ONE unified field of vision and hear only ONE harmonious composition and have only ONE stream of consciousness. The number one seems to have a sanctity all its own. The sanctiy of unity give a new and different meaning to the one greatest prayer of Judaism, the Shema: "Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is ONE." Numero Uno is a God for us in many ways.
Some authors (e.g. Melville & Milan Kunera) are sort of like easter bunnies, hiding esoteric treats in their writings for us to find. Other authors, like Trollope and Hardy, seem almost devoid of such symbolic connotative multivalent activity.
Of course, there is nothing at all wrong with a good story well told.
Some years ago there appeared a wonderful book entitled "An Exhultation of Larks."
James Lipton's "An Exaltation of Larks" is devoted to these collective nouns, many of which orignated as hunters' terms and have been in the language for centuries. Here's a gleaning from his book:
A covey of partridges
A murder of crows
A rafter of turkeys
A brood of hens
A fall of woodcocks
A dule of doves
A wedge of swans
A party of jays
A company of parrots
A colony of penguins
A cover of coots
A sord of mallards
A dissimulation of birds
A peep of chickens
A pitying of turtledoves
A paddling of ducks [on the water]
A siege of herons
A charm of finches
A skein of geese [in flight]
A tidings of magpies
A cast of hawks
A deceit of lapwings
An ostentation of peacocks
A bouquet of pheasants
A congregation of plovers
An unkindness of ravens
A building of rooks
A host of sparrows
A descent of woodpeckers
A mustering of storks
A flight of swallows
A watch of nightingales
A murmuration of starlings
A spring of teal
A parliament of owls
An exaltation of larks
But, Mockingbirds are solitary. Click here
Lee uses foreshadowing to insinuate that Boo Radley may be as much a mockingbird as Tom Robinson by having the children note that “in the darkness a solitary mocker poured out his repertoire in blissful unawareness” near the Radley house. The solitary figure of Boo Radley will save both children from death.
I did promise Sheherazade that I would read through "To Kill A Mockingbird" and look for the presence or absence of religious allusions, with special attention to my conjecter that "Boo is God."
Some of what I assert will be in the spirit of playfulness. When one canonizes a saint, there is always a "devil's advocate" who attempts to refute each allegation of sanctity.
My first point is far fetched but fascinating, if only there might be some truth to it. In the Hebrew Torah (the Pentateuch or first five books of the Old Testament) there are various terms to denote God. The most frequent euphemism is "Ha Shem" (the name, the Holy name, unutterable, the tetragrammaton of four letters.) Another term for God is "makom" which means "place." The Kaballah has a special term, "tsimtsum," which means contraction or withdrawal, to describe how God makes a place for being, for the universe. It is believed that God is such a fullness, superabundance, plenum, that there is no "place" for the universe UNLESS God contracts and withdraws to make existence possible. That place is called "makom." The Talmud says, "God is not in the universe because God is the PLACE (makom) of the universe." How curious that makom, which is created by absence, withdrawal, should also denote that which is absent, contracted, withdrawn, like a pale penumbra. How curious that the word makom resembles the name of the town "Maycomb."
I have a number of observations to make as I read through Harper Lee's novel. I shall be adding to this post over the coming days, and will also post my comments to a page at my site.
An argument against my "makom" theory is that I do not find any connection with Judaism in the biographical information on Truman Capote. In fact, I found one very anti-semitic remark made by Capote:
CAPOTE, TRUMAN, 20th century American, leftist writer: In an interview, he assailed "the Zionist mafia" monopolizing publishing today, and protested a tendency to suppress things that do not meet with Jewish approval. (Playboy magazine, March 1968).
An argument in favor of my "makom" theory is that the town of Maycomb is fictional. Click here
Maycomb is a fictional representation of Monroeville, Alabama.
The surname "Radley" has the root-word (pardon the pun) "rad" which comes from the Latin word for "root." Notice that words like radish and radical are built upon the etymological base of "rad."
Let us look at some of the definitions of the related word "radix:" beginning, commencement, conception, derivation, genesis, head, inception, origin, original, origination, provenience, rise, root, rootstock, source, stem.
Here is a study of the names of Jesus:
Below are those names which convey the notion of the root "rad" in Boo Radley's name:
ROD OF THE STEM OF JESSE Isa 11:1
ROOT AND THE OFFSPRING OF DAVID Rev 22:16
ROOT OF DAVID Rev 5:5
ROOT OF JESSE Isa 11:10
Now let us look at the first sentence of the novel.
"When he was nearly thirteen, my brother Jem got his arm badly broken at the elbow."
The first phrase we are presented with is "When he was nearly thirteen." The author might have written "When he was twelve" and most certainly Jem is still twelve when the injury occurs. It would make sense to assume that Jem and the injury are at the forefront of the thought which utters this sentence, and that the age is merely an afterthought. Bar Mitzvah
"Bar Mitzvah" literally means "son of the commandment." Under Jewish Law, children are not obligated to observe the commandments, although they are encouraged to do so as much as possible to learn the obligations they will have as adults. At the age of 13 (12 for girls), children become obligated to observe the commandments.
Bar Mitzvah is not about being a full adult in every sense of the word, ready to marry, go out on your own, earn a living and raise children. The Torah makes this abundantly clear. In Pirkei Avot, it is said that while 13 is the proper age for fulfillment of the Commandments, 18 is the proper age for marriage and 20 is the proper age for earning a livelihood.
If we count the sentences of this first page, we discover that it is in the SEVENTH sentence that both Dill and Boo Radley are mentioned. What is the significance of seven? Genesis says that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh.
Originally Posted by Scheherazade If Boo were God, what kind of deity is Lee presenting us with? One who is banished from the society, constantly ridiculed and subjected to horrible workings of human imagination... One who is powerless enough to break free from his oppressors and what is more, one who is unwilling to do so. One who is unable to stand up and bring justice for himself... One who, at the end, give in and accepts his fate. I don't think this a picture of the God which would impress the true Christians amongst us!
Your description of a "Boo" god above sounds very much like Jesus to me: banished, ridiculed, powerless to break free, unwilling to escape his fate. And the crowd jeers at him and says "Others he saved, himself he cannot save. Come down from the cross."
Perhaps I should have been more explicit. One takes certain things for granted, living in a predominantly Christian society/culture (though bear in mind that my own personal beliefs are more Hindu/Buddhist). For the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, and many Protestant denominations, Jesus is God incarnate. The notion of Jesus as an incarnation of God is analogous to the Hindu notion of an avatar (which means "having come down/descended"). I do not mean to be patronizing in this explanation, but there are members here from many different cultures I imagine, so I will mention that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, is that God is ONE, (Christians do not consider themselves to be polytheistic), but that ONE monotheistic God, has three persons (from the Latin word "persona" for the mask which actors wore on stage): the three persons of the trinity are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
When I chose the title for this thread, I felt "If Boo is God..." is more provocative than "if Boo is Jesus...", but certainly what I had in mind, when I first became aware of the role Boo plays in the novel, is that there are strong resemblences between Boo and Jesus.
I was quite startled when I saw that Scheherazade, in her more recent post, described Boo in almost the same language and tone that various passages (including Isaiah ch. 55 of the Old Testament ... or is that 53)... describe Jesus. Initially, I had not been struck by those similarities, but only by the fact that Boo is never seen... his existence and nature is only speculated upon... (the mysterious "gifts" appearing)... and only appearing at the end to deliver children from evil.... and the business about the children finally developing a "personal relationship" with Boo (just as Christians speak of a "personal relationship with Jesus."
Now, to address Sheherazade's most excellent question of "WHY would Harper Lee intentionally model Boo after Jesus." My notion is that Harper Lee saw the hypocrisy of a society which proclaims itself as Christian but treats others in a most un-Christ-like manner. What better way to "show up" the hypocrisy of such a society than to have a character such as Boo who would seem to be a misfit but who actually embodies the Christlike qualities of humility, compassion, self-sacrifice, perhaps forgiveness. There was a 4th century (C.E.) Bishop, Athanasius, who siad "God became man so that man might become God." What the good bishop meant was that each Christian aspires to become as Christlike as possible. There is a verse from one of the Epistles of the New Testament which became a hymn sung at eastern orthodox baptisms, "All ye who have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ (as a garment)."
I am reminded, in "The Brothers Karamazov," of the dialogue between Alyosha, the monk, and his atheist brother, Ivan. Ivan has written a poem in which the Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition meets the actual Jesus (who has returned to earth) and desires to banish Jesus as an enemy. The Inquisitor berates Jesus with accusation, and Jesus simply answers with a kiss. When Ivan finishes reading his poem, and askes Alyosha for his opinion, Alyosha simply mimics Christ and give Ivan a kiss. As I use the word "mimic" just now, it occurs to me how closely that word is related to the concept of a "Mockingbird" which MIMICS other things. There is a Christian spiritual work entitled "Imitation of Christ." What if the "mockers" (imitators) are the ones who are truly meek and Christlike, and ipso facto, because of their very nature, are persecuted.
Just now I was snooping around google.com, looking for the Isaiah passage, when I came across:
Isaiah 53: "He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him." How true that was in Israel's history. The people of Jesus' day didn't want a humble Christ who washed their feet and died for their sins; they wanted a mighty Messiah who would get the Romans off their backs and restore Jerusalem to its former glory. Many of the Gentiles in the early church stumbled over the message that a man who died on the cross was not only their Savior but also their God. But this is exactly what Isaiah recorded, exactly what Jesus did, and exactly what you and I need.
(at this same link, notice in this next anecdote, how Peter the Great is IMITATING Jesus)
It is said that Peter the Great of Russia once laid aside his royal garments and traveled to Holland to learn the art of shipbuilding for his people. Dressed in working clothes like any other worker in the shipyard, he kept his identity a secret as he learned his trade and labored as a commoner for the eventual benefit of his people. He assumed the most menial tasks to preserve his anonymity and to learn the full measure of laborious toil. Obviously this example is still an imperfect illustration of Jesus' humility, but it does give us a little glimpse and insight into the depths of Jesus' humiliation. He assumed the most menial task and hid his divinity to bring about the greatest spiritual blessings of forgiveness, peace, and eternal life. This is the humility that Isaiah portrays for us.
If you visit THIS link: Click here
and do a ctrl-F search for "mockingbird" you will notice that the movie "To Kill A Mockingbird" is one of the films listed, among many, for students to write about religious themes and symbolism.
BINGO! Search in google long enough and: http://nancykeane.com/rl/288.htm
The above link is a long list of all the fictional characters which some people consider to be Christ-like figures... and it lists BOO RADLEY.
And, here are a few excerpts from AN ENTIRE SERMON based on "To Kill A Mockingbird:" Click here
As birds go, it is the story of the mockingbird and not the Order of the Phoenix that captures my attention. The species known for its song, named for its actual ability to imitate over forty sounds. Mockingbirds are not without magic! Legend has it that they not only taught the other birds to sing but gave the art of language to us non-feathered folk! As books go, it is the story that captured the imagination of the country in the fall of 1960 that has recaptured me this fall. To Kill a Mockingbird. Remember?
To Kill a Mockingbird is narrated by a girl who is six years old at the beginning of the story. Following a disastrous first day of school with her teacher and other students, her father offers some wisdom. “If you can learn a simple trick, Scout, you’ll get along a lot better with all kinds of folks. You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view … until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.”
That “simple trick” is the basic ethic of Christian faith. It’s a trick in the sense that it requires some skill, takes some practice so that you can do it easily. So it finally comes almost naturally, until we can almost surprise ourselves by our seeing what we did not see before. Considering things from another’s point of view. Walking in somebody else’s shoes. And the Apostle Paul makes it even trickier, when he insists that “we regard no one from a human point of view” but try to see one another as Christ sees us, as new creatures, reconciled to God and given the ministry of reconciliation.
I don’t think that when I read To Kill a Mockingbird back in high school I ever understood the title. In the course of the story the inquisitive Scout, a.k.a. Jean Louise, asks her friend Miss Maudie why she’s heard it said that it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird. “Mockingbirds don’t do one thing but make music for us to enjoy,” is the response. “They don’t eat up people’s gardens, don’t nest in corncribs, they don’t do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That’s why it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.” I think I get it now. Mockingbirds “sing their hearts out for us.” They are the ones that give themselves for us. Do no harm, do only gracious good. They mock our destructive ways. They imitate the grace of God, the goodness of Jesus Christ. There are persons in that story who are the mockingbirds. Tom Robinson, the black man whose kindness to a lonely white woman was fatal. Boo Radley, the white man whose reclusive vigilance of the Finch children saved their lives. It is a sin to kill a mockingbird. And it is our call to live that color blind kindness, goodness, empathy after the example and teaching of Jesus himself. To imitate the grace of God, the goodness of Jesus Christ.
How to learn this not-so- simple trick? One practice is to listen for the voice of Jesus in the stories of the world:
Atticus Finch was the attorney in Maycomb, Alabama appointed to defend an innocent black man against the charge of raping a white woman. To Kill a Mockingbird is a story where seemingly good white people can’t do the right thing. Where the churchgoing Methodists and Baptists and Presbyterians don’t do the Christian thing.
At the end of that particular story, the now nine-year old teller of it stands on the porch of the house she and the other children had feared and jeered. She has befriended the strange and hidden neighbor and taken him safely home. Blessed is he … Turning around, the girl realizes, “I had never seen our neighborhood from this angle.” Standing in front of his shuttered window, she saw what he had seen over seasons and years. “Atticus was right,” she says. “You never really know a man until you stand in his shoes and walk around in them.”
The world is transformed with words, one person at a time.
Back to previous page. Page 31
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.