Parable of the Talents

I wasn't the only one who was confused about whether to classify Octavia Butler's Parable series as Science Fiction or not. I went to the library to get the next book in the series and I couldn't find it. Odd. I had checked on the book's availability just before leaving my home. Could someone have come and checked it out in the 20 or so minutes it took me to drive into town. I re-checked the computer. The first book in the series, Parable of the Sower, was classified as Science Fiction and alphabetized by author's last name in that section of the library. The second book, Parable of the Talents (and many of Butler's other books) was in the fiction section.

I was disappointed in this book. I will just admit that my biggest problem with the book was its strong anti-Christian bias. Oh, the first book in the series hinted of it. The main character's father, a Baptist minister, was described as "the best man I ever knew" and he beat one of his sons so badly that the son found living at home intolerable. The step-mother, who was also a Christian, was distant from her step-daughter and had favored this biological son. The main character couldn't bring herself to believe in the God described in the book of Job -- a God who allowed Satan to torment Job and in the end told Job he didn't have the right to question Him. This didn't really bother me. Even a cursory reading of the Bible and the story of Jacob makes it clear that there is dysfunction in the families claiming allegiance to God. Jacob's twin brother rejected the God of their father; his descendants, the Edomites, are counted among Israel's enemies. But, in the second book, Christian America, a Dominionist Protestant group, has taken over the country. The Christians are portrayed as hypocrites, sadists, rapists, pedophiles, and slavers. Even the one Christian, the long lost brother of our heroine, who is at first presented as misguided and blind to the abuses of his church is tainted by the end of the story. There is not even one who lives out what he or she believes.

This book is politically charged and one-sided. It presents Dominion Theology as a widespread doctrine of all Evangelical and Protestant churches. As a home schooling mom, I know that the theology exists. Some individuals within the home schooling community hold a Dominionist interpretation of the Bible. I was in the Army; I moved around a lot. At each duty station, I did the obligatory "find a church" church visits. I have never in my entire life been in a church which advocated this theological position and I have been in a lot of churches. During last year's election season, my church did little more than make voter guides available in the lobby and remind members to vote. The voter guides highlighted all the major party candidates. I was annoyed that the third party candidates weren't included. But, I didn't feel that the church was trying to sway my vote any more than the mainstream media whose reporting also featured only the two major parties. There wasn't one sermon on abortion, homosexuality or the national budget. And, in fact, it is my opinion that Dominionist Theology isn't even biblical.

Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." ~ John 18:36 (NAS)

Since, I know that Dominionism is not as widespread as people seem to think it is, I get annoyed when mainstream media tries to present "Dominionism" as something other than what it is -- an attempt to seize political power and create a theocracy. I am not comfortable with groups who seem to want to remake America into a theocracy. History has shown us over and over that a religion with political clout is a dangerous thing. Sadly, there is a lot of wickedness that the universal church needs to answer for. But, an inidividual Christian who is active politically is not necessarily a Dominionist. I didn't give up my US citizenship and my right to vote, run for office or support the candidate of my choice when I accepted a Christian worldveiw. I am equally uncomfortable with liberals who want to take over Washington and create laws "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I find both the Democrat and Republican platforms a danger to a society in which everyone is free to pursue happiness. I find the national debt, an issue that wasn't directly addressed in the Parable series, a threat to individual freedom. I am not free if I have to pay a large part of my income to the government -- I am, instead, indentured to that government. I am much more comfortable with libertarians than with either of the two major parties. In the Parable of the Talents, Butler did an admirable job creating a future in which the Christian Right "wins." She exposes the danger that occurs when a group tries to force their beliefs and opinions on others. She is not as good at seeing that there are two sides to the coin. The future will be just as scary and potentially abusive if a strong anti-Christian group becomes politically and culturally powerful. And, it is just as likely.

"Priestly groping of child bodies is disgusting. But it may be less harmful in the long run than priestly subversion of child minds. ~ Richard Dawkins

There are people who would classify reading a religious text to a child, taking them to Sunday school, or praying with them as involuntarily involving a child in religious practices and a violation of the child's rights -- a form of child abuse really. In the Parable of the Talents, the children of the followers of Earthseed, the religious worldview embraced by the main character and her community, are forcibly stolen and placed in adoptive homes where they can be re-educated and re-socialized. After all, the group in power needs people to think like them if they are to continue to win elections and stay in power. What if the Richard Dawkins of this world were the ones with power? Would there not be a similar attempt to socialize and re-teach the children who are being raised in Christian homes? And, how do our current laws on mandatory education, mandated scope and sequences, mandatory testing using state developed tests affect how individuals educate their children in their own home? For what it is worth, I believe that parents should be free to educate and socialize their children however they like.

Probably the area that made me most uncomfortable, because it is the most visible at this moment, is the idea that Christians, and Christians only, should adopt children so that they can raise them "in the faith." Individual Christians may indeed feel led to adopt. In my case, I am infertile and chose adoption as a way to build my family. But, I believe with all my heart that the universal church, the one that Christ said would be known for its love, should have an agenda that has as its primary goal orphan reduction. Most adopted children (those adopted domestically and those adopted through foreign adoption) are not truly orphans. It seems to me that many Christians have looked at the poor, those living in war torn countries and the mentally ill and found them wanting -- unfit to parent their own children.

Additionally, there are Christians who just shouldn't ever adopt. I have found only a little support or understanding within the Christian church when dealing with the behavioral and emotional needs of my daughter with fetal alcohol syndrome. Her current youth pastor and the adult volunteers have been wonderful. But, I can honestly say that this is the first time I found a group of adults who let her join her same-age peers and willingly accommodated her brain differences. Others cannot see my daughter's behavior as anything but evidence of sin. The medications that help her function every day are considered unnecessary. Psychiatry and psychology are viewed as totally at odds with a Christian worldview.

As I researched this author I learned that she had intended on writing a third book in this series. She died before it was completed. Frankly, I don't know where the story would have gone. Earthseed has started to leave Earth. They are on their way to the stars to start new colonies in outer space -- human seeds from Earth. The Parable of the Talents ends with the main character, indeed most of the characters, dead or dying from old age. The story on Earth is done. There is nowhere for the story to go but to the new colony in space. Butler seems to write about the worst, most brutal side of humanity. Would she have been willing to admit that humans from Earthseed took their worst and most brutal side into space and recreated the evilness that was part of the Earth? Even in a space where religion couldn't be blamed?