tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38674679708130128742024-03-14T05:33:32.854-07:00Dogmatic EnigmaticsAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.comBlogger279125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-1459793308154254542016-12-31T14:26:00.000-08:002016-12-31T14:36:02.838-08:00Silence<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXD8xy4vZV717llLI23xrn3aGkcw-62tMZRP6ha_iVsWA1LcnRTgMUAV0dw-X1-klAaNWpq78tT48N8qhSV5GKm54DHgeTu9P0V36YQwZX8pppu3BFA7gTmn0zpCXnfe-oVcprvajR0v0/s1600/Silence.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="238" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXD8xy4vZV717llLI23xrn3aGkcw-62tMZRP6ha_iVsWA1LcnRTgMUAV0dw-X1-klAaNWpq78tT48N8qhSV5GKm54DHgeTu9P0V36YQwZX8pppu3BFA7gTmn0zpCXnfe-oVcprvajR0v0/s400/Silence.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<i><br /></i>
<i><br /></i>
<i>This post contains spoilers. Read the book or see the film, and then return.</i><br />
<br />
Are you willing to die for your Christian faith? If subjected to torture would you apostatize out of weakness or doubt? Most Christians would like to think that they would not apostatize and would faithfully walk the path of the martyrs. But the very fact that the Church honors and venerates the martyrs, exalting them highly, tells you that martyrdom is a special calling and a glorious achievement, one that not all of us could accomplish (though we pray to be granted their strength.)<br />
<br />
But what if your faith <i>did</i> have that rare strength of the martyrs, and was willing to suffer torture and death for Christ's sake -- but your tormentors were especially cunning. Having realized that the glory of the martyrs <i>does</i> in fact fuel the growth and strength of the Church, your tormentors, instead of subjecting you to cruel physical torments, subjected your fellow Christians to torture, forcing you to observe, unless <i>you</i> apostatized. Because they know that creating apostates is a much more effective tactic at hurting the Church than creating martyrs.<br />
<br />
This thought experiment is posited in<i> Silence</i>--both the brilliant book by Shusako Endo and the new film by Martin Scorsese, the latter being a very faithful adaptation of the former (though the book is rich and has more dimensions than just this animating question.)<br />
<br />
The Christian faith had begun to expand and get a foothold in Japan during the decades before the events depicted in <i>Silence </i>(set in the 1630s), having converted even a number of feudal lords and their subjects, but the shogun began to harshly crackdown on the faith, abruptly coming to see its expansion as a threat to the Japanese way of life.<br />
<br />
In this context, two Portuguese Jesuit missionaries, Fr. Garrpe and Rodriguez, head to Japan, both to serve its persecuted Catholic minority--facing a harsh crackdown which had deprived it of spiritual leadership and forced Christians into hiding their religion--and to see about the fate of their teacher in the faith, Fr. Ferreira, who is rumored to have apostatized.<br />
<br />
Rodriguez, after spending time serving Christian villages in secret, having observed Christians subject themselves to brutal torture and martyrdom to protect his secrecy, and struggling mightily with his faith as a consequence, is eventually captured. The diabolical inquisitor, Inoue, allows him to serve his fellow captured Christians for weeks, to the point where Rodriguez almost enjoys his captivity, serving Christians he came to help and growing closer to them.<br />
<br />
What Rodriguez doesn't realize is that the inquisitor is fanning his love for these Christians to use it as the ultimate weapon against him. The climax of the story comes as Rodriguez is forced to watch a number of the Japanese Christians he had been serving hung upside down in the pit, and told they would remain there--the torture often lasting days before they died--unless he apostatized by trampling on the <i>fumie</i>, an icon of Christ. And he is being prodded to do so by his old teacher, Fr. Ferreira, who himself had apostatized after being hung in the pit, and who has become convinced that Christianity can't flourish in Japan.<br />
<br />
When standing before the icon, with the Christians hanging in the pit, Rodriguez hears the voice of Christ telling him to trample on the image, because Christ came to suffer for men's sake. But is this the voice of Christ? Or is Rodriguez attempting to soothe his own conscience? Did Christ come to suffer <i>with</i> men, and thereby imbue faithful suffering, even unto death, with his own Life? Or did he come to eradicate suffering by his own suffering?<br />
<br />
These are the weighty questions raised by this powerful book and film. While I don't see the book as an apologia for apostasy, as <a href="http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/11/silence-antithesis-of-man-for-all.html">some have accused it of being</a>, I'm also wary of the opposite read that sees Rodriguez' end as straightforward 'liberation.' Scorsese's take on the ending--hopeful, but ultimately leaving judgment of Rodriguez's actions to God--faithfully captures and embodies the tension of the book's resolution.<br />
<br />
That being said, I do sympathize with the more 'cynical' reading of the ending somewhat. Not because <i>Silence</i> openly valorizes Rodriguez's apostasy--I don't think it does that--but because it embraces ambiguity where the reality is somewhat more clear than is suggested. Christ <i>has</i> come to suffer with men, and open up suffering, if embraced faithfully, as a path to salvation; alleviating the suffering of others is part of the Christian call, but must always be subservient to the higher call of faithfulness.<br />
<br />
Apostasy, even if 'only' outward, can never be justified for "whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 10:32-33).<br />
<br />
Sounding as if he were commenting on <i>Silence</i> himself (though he definitely wasn't, as he was writing long before the book was written), Ivan Ilyin puts it this way:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Only love can save a person and set him free. Its first and most basic form is sympathy for the suffering one. A person feels for someone in his torment, sympathizes with him, and begins to demonstrate a living and constructive participation. He forgets about himself, living for the sake of the other person's suffering, and by doing so he frees himself from dwelling on his own pain and individual grief. His own personhood no longer binds or blinds him; in its place someone else's personhood begins to overcome him, filling his life and soul. If he doesn't notice this in time to defeat this new prison, then he will soon become prisoner of another creature's torment. As long as sympathy has the final say and remains the highest expression of his love, the suffering of any living being will seem to him a tragedy or misfortune, and he will see the existing 'evil' in every creature's torment. He begins to believe that the higher purpose of life lies in mankind's deliverance from suffering. He can no longer bear to see a suffering being, and the battle against suffering becomes his primary concern. A life without illness becomes the highest earthly concern.</blockquote>
Is this not precisely what has happened to Rodriguez? An overly sanguine reading of the story's resolution, or even a somewhat ambiguous one, can obscure the fact that apostasy can not be justified or made into a faithful act.<br />
<br />
None of this should be taken as criticism of either the book or the film, which I do believe are brilliant works. The ability to sustain variant readings, while wrestling with some of the most intractable enigmas of Christian faith, is a feature rather than a bug. But we should nevertheless be wary of one of modernity's more subtle tricks: treating a settled truth as if it were an open question.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-38249097431105263062016-12-23T22:30:00.001-08:002016-12-23T22:30:19.268-08:00Americanism<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBSNJUs7hvJhnEy_y0z0waganKwz7pFtOam3fTdGLUnJg_2-5Qm-Vnf4IL-9KD8vO0-63mlsbZR2k8UKDRxiEQsevL9qt1ZJ19_juP8_8fSI7WU-BwQbGoy7lngqj0cbeibzmVjlTf5K8/s1600/americanism.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBSNJUs7hvJhnEy_y0z0waganKwz7pFtOam3fTdGLUnJg_2-5Qm-Vnf4IL-9KD8vO0-63mlsbZR2k8UKDRxiEQsevL9qt1ZJ19_juP8_8fSI7WU-BwQbGoy7lngqj0cbeibzmVjlTf5K8/s1600/americanism.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
This <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000SCHB70/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1">bizarre book</a> acutely, perceptively traces the Puritan lineage of what the author describes as Americanism, from the founders up through Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. In that journey, Puritanism is transmogrified into Americanism, or 'American Zionism', which is a new biblical religion.<br />
<br />
Americanism is Christian, but with a particular emphasis on the Old Testament and ancient Israel, its adherents seeing in America a new Israel, a new chosen people.<br />
<br />
Standing athwart the secularist framing of America's history, Gelernter shouts 'stop!' America's origins were deeply religious, Puritan more specifically, and that seed remains--if in an altered form--today. The founders advocated freedom of religion, not indifference to it, and the framing that casts them as avid, intentional secularists is misleading.<br />
<br />
Gelernter's analysis of America's traditions of liberty, equality, and democracy, as well as the desire to spread this American Creed to the world, being deeply rooted in its Puritan founding is profound and illuminating. As is his persistent insistence that this American religion is a neo-Judaizing form of Christianity (applying Scriptures to America that ought to apply to the Church.) What is strange is his belief that <i>this is a good thing.</i> And not only believing that, but exalting this American Zionism in the most lofty tones.<br />
<br />
While, to someone of a reactionary (and Orthodox) bent (like myself), his accurate analysis should not inspire praise but utter horror. From the founding, to Lincoln, to Wilson, what Gelernter singles out as highlights in his reading of American history, and the almost religious reverence he holds for these figures and their devotion to the American Creed, is downright creepy.<br />
<br />
Noting the religious, biblical character of the founders, and other crucial persons in American history, like Lincoln, is all well and good, but Puritanism with its "zeal not according to knowledge" is a profoundly dangerous force. And the judaizing which Gelernter (himself a Jew) praises so highly is literally the first Christian heresy, one that arises during the timeframe of events recorded in the New Testament. That these forces formed the basis of the nation is telling, and not something to be celebrated unequivocally (if at all).<br />
<br />
Also, while Gelernter perceptively traces the transformation of Puritanism into Unitarianism, and later Americanism, he eventually loses the plot. He casts contemporary secularists and leftists as having abandoned this Puritan-based Americanism of the founders, Lincoln, Wilson etc., but that is not exactly correct. Americanism always had the seeds of Universalism within it, and it has since transformed into this. The desire to spread the American Creed to the globe, which he recognizes, especially with Woodrow Wilson, is the basis of this Universalism. This is the global progressivism, the secularism, that Gelernter sees as simply antithetical to Americanism, rather than a new mutation of it.<br />
<br />
But that's precisely what it is. As Puritanism became, eventually, post-Puritan, so too did Americanism become post-Americanist in its globalist, universalist incarnation.<br />
<br />
Near the end of the book (published in 2007) Gelernter writes presciently that "the next great American religious revival will start, my guess is, on college campuses--and it will start fairly soon. The need is great." And indeed it has! The fervor with which campus SJWs are, in a manner of speaking, excommunicating heretics, burning witches, and demanding fidelity to a set of dogmas is quite religious indeed. They also act in the name of the same gods of the Puritan-American Creed: liberty (or liberation), equality, and democracy (though one might add 'progress'). And they still have a sacred belief in a chosen people, in a new Israel, but it's not Americans. It's the global oppressed.<br />
<br />
When Americanism, with its liberal Creed, ultimately begins to look eerily like Marxism, reactionaries are not surprised in the least. Neocons like Gelernter, on the other hand, are poised to miss the deep continuity between the Americanism they love and the post-Americanism they think they hate.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-47567785524056228862016-12-22T16:23:00.004-08:002016-12-22T17:02:46.909-08:00The Empire Was Good, But Not *That* Empire.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5YIdLkv3tHHW46VZbiRQBJs8h-o07TUrFxAnNaBXWT0E2pWsb0R61nUMAOgGNhmzg_69QnsbnfbdNmS-iH5dnEw8OXeAVNPQTz8l3RWLsLZxJaeQcmUBq_5nA9MQe6mjzWl7jUrEG9sA/s1600/rogue-one.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="167" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5YIdLkv3tHHW46VZbiRQBJs8h-o07TUrFxAnNaBXWT0E2pWsb0R61nUMAOgGNhmzg_69QnsbnfbdNmS-iH5dnEw8OXeAVNPQTz8l3RWLsLZxJaeQcmUBq_5nA9MQe6mjzWl7jUrEG9sA/s320/rogue-one.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
In <i>Rogue One</i> there are two factions of the Rebellion. Broadly speaking, they are moderates and extremists. The moderates are still seeking to affect political change via diplomacy, while the extremists are convinced that the corruption of the Empire is such that only radical, violent resistance--revolution--will do.
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2016/12/22/rogue-ones-politics-are-clearer-and-better-than-those-in-the-force-awakens/?utm_term=.39bc5e45cef3">Neocon boosters of American Empire</a> like Sonny Bunch, who <a href="http://freebeacon.com/blog/empire-star-wars-good-new-substandard-podcast/">enjoy LARPing as the Galactic Empire</a>, do so in vain. The Rebellion--democratic, anti-authoritarian, egalitarian, and very much universalist in its aspirations and pretensions--is American Empire in seed form. <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/dick-cheney-embraces-the-darth-vader-meme">Comparisons of Dick Cheney to Darth Vader</a> notwithstanding, American Empire functions by spreading, or attempting to spread, American values of democracy, liberty, and equality to the globe. Not exactly high on Vader's list of priorities, but right in the wheelhouse of the Rebellion. The two sides are not Empire and anti-Empire, but competing Empires. Not all Imperia are created equal.<br />
<br />
Observing the factionalism of the Rebellion in the film naturally brings to mind Islam (jihadis and non-jihadis), but it is better correlated with the Puritan North (abolitionist and non-, later interventionist and non-). The Rebellion is too democratic, diverse, and egalitarian for it to be an appropriate analog to Islam. Puritan Yankees fit the bill much better. The same Yankees that were the victors who came to define America, and spread its secularized Puritanism to much of the globe.<br />
<br />
Others have made similar critiques of Bunch, <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/426641/course-empire-evil-and-so-sonny-bunch-jonah-goldberg">rightly recognizing that America is much better correlated with the Rebellion than the Empire</a>. But both sides of this argument miss the mark for a simple reason: both assume American Empire is a force for good in the world. It's an intra-neocon squabble that is easily resolved: Bunch likes to root for the bad guys in film and troll (who doesn't?) Not much more to it than that.<br />
<br />
But it turns out Bunch is correct by accident. The rebels are a force for evil in the galaxy, <i>as is America to the globe</i>; the Empire are the protags, <i>but they are not America</i> (or even the neocon segment of it.) The Empire are the defenders of power and order, hierarchy and authority, tradition and obedience, harnessing spiritual power to quell dissension among the people, securing a new Pax Romana against the forces of global (or galactic) liberalism. The Empire is Holy Mother Russia.*<br />
<br />
---------------------------------<br />
<br />
*It's to be expected that the screenwriters would attempt to tar the Empire and its values with allusions to Nazism and planetary ethnic cleansing. To maintain the analogy we just note that the hysterical anti-trad equivalent of 'planetary ethnic cleansing' in the Current Year would be something benign like anti-homosexual-propaganda laws.
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-40359423858766765512016-12-15T01:16:00.000-08:002016-12-15T06:14:09.805-08:00Against Imminent Flourishing<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-vuY-CNQmQS-Y8_8RU03IPUKXyFwIN5dEK_OrR3jAIHqNAcBzdCej73hjluMjzA6_gGtQ9QJYUTX2QO8BOcGxSWWPpBYdHrGXQW5d2orwHDugLgxbADGT5HqQblASSvJqtM6nDtqpsuQ/s1600/reaction1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="211" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-vuY-CNQmQS-Y8_8RU03IPUKXyFwIN5dEK_OrR3jAIHqNAcBzdCej73hjluMjzA6_gGtQ9QJYUTX2QO8BOcGxSWWPpBYdHrGXQW5d2orwHDugLgxbADGT5HqQblASSvJqtM6nDtqpsuQ/s320/reaction1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Encountering the assumptions and norms of secular, liberal <a href="http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/07/universalism-postwar-progressivism-as.html">Universalism</a>, we need to train ourselves to distinguish the particular assumptions of this worldframe from obvious truths, for which they are often confused. Because this frame is our inheritance—<strike>for better or</strike> for worse—this requires some training and discipline.<br />
<br />
To understand the depth of the problem, and the insidious nature of the enemy, let's look at something that, on its face, may appear straightforward and uncontroversial: The Human Development Index (HDI.) The HDI, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index">per Wikipedia</a>, "is a composite statistic of life expectancy, education, and per capita income indicators, which are used to rank countries into four tiers of human development."<br />
<br />
Bracketing the question of what exact data, metrics, standards, and procedures are used for establishing the rankings, what could be controversial here? Longer life expectancy, better education, and greater amounts of income are uncontroversially better than their opposites, and the HDI ranks accordingly. How could anyone, secular Universalist or not, dissent?<br />
<br />
Here we recall that Christians worship Jesus Christ, the <i>Theanthropos</i>, who likely had moderate levels of formal education, lived a life of voluntary poverty, and was brutally executed at a fairly young age. The supreme human life, according to the Christian, fails on all three measures of "Human Development": education, income, and life expectancy.<br />
<br />
Not only that, but Christ exhorted his followers to "take up your cross and follow me", into that very same life of simplicity and sacrifice. If his followers were to be successful according to Christ, their lot would entail a martyric form of life, if not martyrdom itself (and all of the apostles were in fact martyred, save for St. John); if they were to be successful according to the world, it would not.<br />
<br />
This is not, of course, to suggest that education is bad, money anathema, or that we should aim for the shortest lives possible. It is to say that what is deemed to be "flourishing" in the purely imminent frame of the secular materialist, will always necessarily be a secondary, at best, concern for the traditional Christian. And that in many instances, what would increase stature in the imminent frame, would diminish it in the eternal. The two can't be reconciled.<br />
<br />
All other considerations being equal, a devout, faithful, uneducated woman who dies giving birth to her fifth child at a young age is of incomparably higher stature in the Kingdom than a selfishly childless, successful, careerist secularist who lives to a ripe old-age, having aborted many children along the way. On the HDI, the former hurts your nation's rankings and the latter helps them.<br />
<br />
And how easily we (opponents of the secular-Universalist project), slip into adopting their framing as our own. When presented with HDI rankings, rather than striking immediately to the question of the underlying presuppositions, we instead seek to explain the data in favorable ways. "The highest ranked nations are secular European ones, who all have Christian histories and retain Christian principles, even if in deracinated form." However true that may be, that tack accepts that the metrics of 'human development' are fundamentally correct, when they are actually quite irrelevant to the actual <i>sine qua non</i> of human flourishing: salvation.<br />
<br />
And many other non-ultimate, but still highly crucial, metrics of actual human development are routinely left out of the frame of the secular Universalist: moral sense and constitution; aesthetically pleasing cities; high TFR, etc.<br />
<br />
When we argue that pornography is bad, not because it degrades the soul by divorcing the sexual act from the intimacy, blessedness, and fecundity of the marital bond, and objectifies humans in the service of self-gratification, but because it harmfully re-wires neural pathways, we repeat the mistake. The latter fact may be empirical evidence of the former truth (which can be accessed independently via revelation), but to make it the central plank of the case is to embrace the secularist, materialist frame.<br />
<br />
This overreliance on data, and with it the multiplication of 'problems' for 'reformers' to solve, Helen Andrews has dubbed "<a href="https://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/02/bloodless-moralism">bloodless moralism</a>." Meanwhile for us, as <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Chartism.html?id=kaelVuyDq20C">Thomas Carlyle puts it</a>, "tables [of data, statistics] are like cobwebs, like the sieve of the Danaides; beautifully reticulated, orderly to look upon, but which will hold no conclusion."<br />
<br />
It's imperative that Christian reactionaries and traditionalists avoid succumbing to the conservative temptation of attempting to beat liberals at their own game, here. And it's tempting to do so, because the data is in fact on our side, when it is correlated with a proper <i>telos</i>. But being obsessively and myopically "data-driven" is a feature of the Left, and is a product of its implacable imminentism. Christian reactionaries are concerned with the sacred, the eternal, the immortal, and locating those within the imminent. But tacitly accepting the imminent frame as the supreme one is to allow the secular-Universalist to set the rules of engagement and, thus, to lose.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-82226705329785638712016-09-05T08:03:00.000-07:002016-09-05T08:03:20.231-07:00The Heresy of Solutionism<i><br /></i>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTE5eJrM-Q480fodsyLV1GMwv3Z8lAwoqYPsAlGctiCXVs5CYtswenV-CMlvvyWofIQLB2rpar1ghEXa5sPp6Zpdo0WAZKYBha_JJDKrsVD_9StZXaTIFNHABiZhUiRUEOgQ5XiinXQtk/s1600/cathedral.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="250" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTE5eJrM-Q480fodsyLV1GMwv3Z8lAwoqYPsAlGctiCXVs5CYtswenV-CMlvvyWofIQLB2rpar1ghEXa5sPp6Zpdo0WAZKYBha_JJDKrsVD_9StZXaTIFNHABiZhUiRUEOgQ5XiinXQtk/s400/cathedral.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<i><br /></i>
<i>Vanity of vanities; all is vanity. </i><br />
<br />
Of the many currents seething beneath the surface of our social reality, one that is not often reflected on is our deep-seated commitment to solutionism. What I'm calling solutionism has significant overlap with pragmatism, as well as scientism and positivism, but it is more properly the belief that all problems admit of in-principle solutions that are ultimately discoverable by human reason and ingenuity.<br />
<br />
Practically, most people in our culture think and speak as if this were true, even if they wouldn't cop to believing that all problems are soluble when the question is put to them. None of the platforms of any of the political parties in the United States, major or minor, contain any planks that read "there is not much that can be done about this, to be honest." Or "all available options in this realm are inexorably fraught with peril. Weep and gnash your teeth." Because secular theology has declared the centrality and dominion of man-without-God, and determined that if man is not yet omnipotent, he must become so.<br />
<br />
Consider that most intractable problem: death and aging. While acknowledging that there are those intrepid, brash futurists out there who believe even these problems can be solved, let's grant that most people consider them insoluble. Do we actually behave as if they are? Do we obsess over diet and exercise, in lieu of loftier pursuits? Is cosmetic surgery a multi-billion dollar industry? Do women past a certain age refuse to state their age out loud? Do we make a cult out of youth and build large segments of our economy around it? Do we exile the elderly to spend their latter decades apart from their families, and denigrate their wisdom and experience as ignorant and backwards? Have we removed care of the dead and cemeteries from our churches and churchyards to more remote professionals and locations? None of these actions will solve death and dying, of course, but deep down that's what we hope we're doing.<br />
<br />
In <i>The Elementary Particles</i>, which examines the problem of death and the urge to overcome it, Michel Houellebecq writes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In contemporary Western society, death is like white noise to a man in good health; it fills his mind when his dreams and plans fade. With age, the noise becomes increasingly insistent, like a dull roar with the occasional screech. In another age the sound meant waiting for the kingdom of God; it is now an anticipation of death. </blockquote>
<div>
Elsewhere in the book, he depicts the lengths people go to in order to turn down the white noise, and to push death to the periphery of their awareness. For want of a solution, at least at this date, we will deny the problem for as long as it's feasible.</div>
<br />
If our actions reveal that we believe death can be solved, any lesser problem—and every problem is lesser—must not only be soluble, but comparatively simple. The planet will soon be destroyed by anthropogenic catastrophic global-warming, you say? We should have acted decades ago and it's too late, but still, we must "do something." We've enacted every gun restriction we could dream up, save confiscation, and people still get shot? It is imperative that we "do something" more. A just political order can only arise from a virtuous people, but we are corrupt and decadent? There must be an app for that.<br />
<br />
The desperate anxiety of our society can in part be seen as the result of belief in the solubility of all problems, which in turn can be understood as the fruit of our Enlightenment addiction to rational certainty. Returning to <i>The Elementary Particles</i>, Houellebecq writes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
There is no power in the world—economic, political, religious or social—that can compete with rational certainty. Western society is interested beyond all measure in philosophy and politics, and the most vicious, ridiculous conflicts have been about philosophy and politics; it has also had a passionate love affair with literature and the arts, but nothing in its history has been as important as the need for rational certainty. The West has sacrificed everything to this need: religion, happiness, hope—and, finally, its own life.</blockquote>
Rationalism gives way to seeing technological mastery of the world as an end in itself and humanity's <i>raison d'etre</i>. Technological advances further feed the illusion of the independence and potential omnipotence of man.<br />
<br />
Sober reflection on the human condition reveals that most of our perennial problems admit of no solution within the immanent frame. Technological and social advances often introduce new problems and unintended consequences. At best we're left navigating a system of trade-offs, with most of society's problems being insoluble. But this is cause for sobriety, not despair. The stuff of life is, blessedly, not found in solving the world's problems. If it were, no man to date would have lived.<br />
<br />
For Christians, this should be rather obvious, because if we were called to implement societal reforms and build utopia on earth, Our Lord probably would have mentioned this to us at some point. As Nicolás Gómez Dávila puts it, "that Christianity may not solve social problems is no reason to commit apostasy except for those who forget that it never promised to solve them." Instead, Christ came preaching a gospel of repentance and obedience to His commandments, the fruit of which is salvation, fully realized only in the eschaton.<br />
<br />
The process of repentance and keeping the commandments entails things like serving, and giving to, the poor, of course, but not with the world's end of eliminating poverty in view. Poverty never appears as an enemy in the gospel; wealth does. And, as Christ's encounter with the rich young ruler reveals (Matt. 19:16-22), the problem of wealth is solved by <i>detachment</i> from the things of the world, and <i>attachment</i> to the things of the Kingdom of Heaven.<br />
<br />
The Kingdom appears in the immanent frame, especially in the worshiping, sacramental life of the Church, by "laying aside all earthly cares", as we sing at the beginning of the liturgy of the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church. Solutions to the worst problems—sin and death—exist in Christ, but they are eternal realities and gifts from God, not worldly projects and designs.<br />
<br />
The folly of solutionism was first clearly seen at the Tower of Babel. Its modern day analogs would be the Headquarters of the United Nations and the Capitol Building in Washington D.C.; its antidote—its solution—is the cathedral.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-1084864744926311162016-05-03T08:05:00.000-07:002016-05-03T08:22:30.882-07:00Disney at Peak Propaganda<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg9dAGej74RReHtwwReuzeyCguvChCQj-Kb9wKHupaNxF50rJ5HS7n5Dpj_9tcq91zQEvwb7gi_B55ECncmo-nPt7B2PQiNMdAoKIXDVYckptZ7nCyzIVsJzSN5FZ9gA99j-aMj0ZUp58/s1600/judyhopp.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg9dAGej74RReHtwwReuzeyCguvChCQj-Kb9wKHupaNxF50rJ5HS7n5Dpj_9tcq91zQEvwb7gi_B55ECncmo-nPt7B2PQiNMdAoKIXDVYckptZ7nCyzIVsJzSN5FZ9gA99j-aMj0ZUp58/s400/judyhopp.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3917">
</div>
<div id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3917">
</div>
<div id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3917">
It's
generally taken for granted by most Christians and social conservatives that, when it
comes to culture, Hollywood is a cesspool of liberalism and degeneracy
which functions as the <i id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_5345">de facto</i>
propaganda wing of the secular state. Much of its messaging, especially as it
appears in children shows and films, is subtle enough that many tend not
to notice it and dismiss conservative concerns as paranoia. With
Disney's <i id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3918">Zootopia</i>, the mask is off.</div>
<div id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3920">
<br id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3921" /></div>
<div id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3922">
From
the first frame to the last, the film advances from one liberal conceit
to another without bothering to cloak its overt agenda.</div>
<div id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3923">
<br id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3924" /></div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3925">
<div id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3926">
Beginning
with an account of the historical advance of society from primitive and
savage times, when predators devoured prey and the animal kingdom was
ruled by primal instincts, to modern animal times when predator and
prey, having "evolved", live together in peace and harmony, the film
traffics heavily in liberal mythology. From the opening scene, one is
already immersed in an animal version of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history" id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3927" rel="nofollow" style="color: #196ad4;" target="_blank">Whig history</a>. </div>
<div id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3929">
<br id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3930" /></div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3931">
To
make matters worse, in the same scene a sheep with a rainbow on its
head (clearly representing the LGBT community) appears and declares
that, thanks to this advance from savage primal days to the days of
reason, he no longer lives in fear of "coming out" from among the flock.
The hetero reign of tyranny that is western civilization, in which
aberrant sexualities have always been violently suppressed, is just an
obvious truth. As obvious as the good of promoting the expression of
said sexualities without any objection or reservation (which would be bigotry).</div>
</div>
<div id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3933">
<br id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3934" /></div>
<div id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3935">
From
there we encounter a common theme in Disney films, as our young,
idealistic, protagonist female bunny, Judy Hopps, feels stifled by her
hick-farmer parents, their rural life, and traditional values. From
Ariel to Jasmine to Merida, petulant adolescent rebellion against
parental authority and the wisdom of tradition has been a staple of the
Disney animated film genre for a long time. It rears its ugly head again
here, as the film openly mocks traditional ways of life -- represented
by the carrot-farmer parents -- as closed-minded and "fearful." In
contrast to this, the young protagonist's cosmopolitan adventurism is
portrayed as a healthy rejection of her parent's way of life, and
probably the only genuine way to live.</div>
<div id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3937">
<br id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3938" /></div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3939">
<div id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3940">
Following the motto of <span id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3941">Zootopia</span> (the
large animal city, where predator and prey live and work together in
blissful accord), a place where "Anyone Can Be Anything!", the young
female bunny Judy heads off to the big city in order to become a
police(wo)man, providing yet another example of the "<a href="http://mereorthodoxy.com/why-we-should-jettison-the-strong-female-character/" id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3942" rel="nofollow" style="color: #196ad4;" target="_blank">strong female character</a>" taking on a characteristically male career. </div>
<div id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3940">
<br /></div>
<div id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3940">
Don't
ask whether there are sensible reasons certain professions, like police
officer, firefighter, and coal miner, are male dominated, while others
are dominated by women. Assume with us, won't you, that it's the
patriarchy oppressing strong women everywhere, forcing them into
submission as pitiable domestic slaves. Also assume that there are no
such things as characteristically male and female traits, virtues,
skills, and weaknesses. Such thoughts must not be spoken here.</div>
<div id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3944">
<br id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3945" /></div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3946">
As
we will see later, the film isn't presenting the city's exceptionally
naive motto ("Anyone can be Anything!") as absolutely true, but the
later circumspection merely modifies, rather than contradicts, the basic
message which the motto represents. The self-esteem movement has
created a generation of dysfunctional narcissists, yet cultural elites
still refuse to abandon its fundamental conceit. Namely, that everyone
is a special snowflake whose desires society should cater to and aim to
fulfill.</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3947">
<br id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3948" /></div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3949">
Once
in the big city, Judy observes an event in which a business owner (an
elephant, which I'm sure just coincidentally corresponds to
the animal which represents the GOP) denies service to a customer,
citing his "We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" sign.
Appalled by the sight of a business owner exercising his right of free
association in business, our heroine -- while she doesn't pass a law
that would force him to bake the cake (it's actually ice cream) --
threatens him with legal action on an unrelated matter, effectively
pressuring him into serving the customer. <a href="http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/28/nba-threatening-north-carolina-is-textbook-cultural-cronyism/" id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3950" rel="nofollow" style="color: #196ad4;" target="_blank">Cultural cronyism</a> at work. </div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3952">
<br id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3953" /></div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3955">
If
that weren't preachy and condescending enough, in the very same scene a
young fox thinks he is an elephant, a delusion for which he receives
fawning adulation from surrounding adults. Trans-speciesism among
children is something to be encouraged in Zootopia, let there be no
doubt.</div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3956">
<br id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3957" /></div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3958">
Crowning
the suite of liberal propaganda points, certain predators in Zootopia
(and only predators) have begun to "go savage", seemingly reverting to
their bloodthirsty nature. Judy posits a biological explanation for why
it is only predators going savage, and not prey. Her fox friend, a
predator, is appalled by her speciesism, and the harmony of Zootopia
subsequently devolves into inter-special resentment and distrust thanks
to our heroine's Islamophob-- er, predatoraphobic bigotry. At this point
I looked up the writing credits for the film, expecting to find Angela
Merkel or Justin Trudeau. </div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3958">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3958">
But
fear not. Judy dutifully repents of her bigotry, genuflecting deeply
before those she has offended -- even though her conclusion was
eminently justified by all available evidence. But following the
evidence is not always the preferred course of action, and can be misleading, as we later find out. It turns out that the
fact it was only predators "going savage" was the result of a giant
conspiracy! Prey can "go savage" too! Lesson learned: no matter how much
reason and evidence point in a particular direction, there's always a
more convoluted explanation which will account for less, but which
nevertheless is in accord with liberal dogma. Think: "<a class="yiv1398851291edited-link-editor" href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/260210-sanders-doubles-down-climate-change-causes-terrorism" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">global warming is the primary cause of terrorism</a>."</div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3960">
<br id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3961" /></div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3962">
In
a last-ditch and halfhearted attempt to moderate the film's liberal
extremism, the closing monologue injects a dose of faux humility.
Recognizing the Zootopian motto of "Anyone Can Be Anything!" to be
overly idealistic, due to various weaknesses of animal nature
(weaknesses like tradition and conservatism), the film trades 20th
century leftist utopianism for a duly chastened 21st century liberalism.
Utopia may not be possible <i id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3963">as a destination</i> (due to intractable reactionary forces forever opposing 'progress'), but <i id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3964">as a goal</i>,
a steady advance towards utopia, along with a continual eradication of
backwards-thinking conservatives and their ideology, is still always
worth pursuing.</div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3965">
<br id="yiv1398851291yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1461022554846_3966" /></div>
Christians and conservatives
have never mistaken Hollywood for a friend, to our credit. The next
step is recognizing it as the openly hostile enemy, the savage beast out
to devour our children, that it plainly is.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-21527784376516816102013-10-10T06:58:00.000-07:002013-10-10T06:58:28.977-07:00St. Ephraim the Syrian -- Intercession<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7s-TPfLgWf2SOwcpGoa9Ub7mymTCdfCsHDblRTTZrWgqEoEo5qjPdekf8toM-9EiXavZyob1Ef9Jf5yuc-vKSTaUjOthh7rXGR9N8hM9hCuAiGWFjnACJhdoOg2J9O0Kv9TeKEgWdFnA/s1600/Mor_Ephrem_icon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7s-TPfLgWf2SOwcpGoa9Ub7mymTCdfCsHDblRTTZrWgqEoEo5qjPdekf8toM-9EiXavZyob1Ef9Jf5yuc-vKSTaUjOthh7rXGR9N8hM9hCuAiGWFjnACJhdoOg2J9O0Kv9TeKEgWdFnA/s320/Mor_Ephrem_icon.jpg" width="268" /></a>Praying through the spiritual psalter of St. Ephraim the Syrian (as compiled by St. Theophan the Recluse), the depth and richness of the prayers is astonishing. Sincere repentance, deep humility, and thanksgiving form the backbone of the prayers, which touch on all aspects of the spiritual life. Here St. Ephraim pleads for the intercessions of the Holy Saints of God.<br />
<br />
---------------------<br />
<br />
Who will not lament for me, who have renounced the eternal kingdom for the sake of meagre pleasures, ignoring the eternal fire? Having surrendered myself to the passions, I have destroyed the integrity of my soul and become like the unreasoning beasts.<br />
<br />
At one time I found myself rich with gifts, but now I have come to love the poverty of the passions. I have become a stranger to the virtues and departed for the distant land of corruption. I am half dead; I have only a tiny remnant of life in me.<br />
<br />
Because I am this way by mine own free choice, I cannot even raise mine eyes to the kindhearted Lord.<br />
<br />
<strong>Lament, O blessed and righteous ones, for me who am caught in the embrace of passions and sin.</strong><br />
<strong>Lament, O ascetics, for me who am a glutton and voluptuary.</strong><br />
<strong>Lament, O merciful and condescending ones, for me who am hardhearted and cause much grief.</strong><br />
<strong>Lament, O God-pleasers, for me who strive to please men.</strong><br />
<strong>Lament, O ye who have attained meekness, for me who am irritable and wrathful.</strong><br />
<strong>Lament, O humble ones, for me who am pompous and arrogant.</strong><br />
<strong>Lament, O ye who have attained the nonacquisitiveness of the apostles, for me who, burdened by my love for possessions, cling to material things.</strong><br />
<strong>Lament, O ye who have loved lamentation and hated laughter, for me who have loved laughter and hated lamentation.</strong><br />
<strong>Lament, ye who contemplate the judgement that will come after death, for me who affirm that I remember the judgement but act to the contrary.</strong><br />
<br />
Pray, O saints of God, for my soul which is convulsed by all manner of passions. Inasmuch as you are able, help me, O saints of God.<br />
<br />
For I know that if you beseech God, the Lover of mankind, all will be granted you from the sea of His kindness. And, like our man-befriending God, so also when I, a sinner, beseech you, do not despise my supplication; for I have not the boldness to pray to Him myself because of the multitude of my sins.<br />
<br />
Your role it is, O saints, to intercede for sinners, God's role it is to have mercy on those who despair.<br />
O saints of God, pray to the King on behalf of the prisoner. Pray to the Pastor on behalf of the sheep. <strong>Pray to Life on behalf of the corpse, that He might lend His hand to aid me and strengthen my humble soul in its feebleness.</strong><br />
<br />
------------------------<br />
<br />
St. Ephraim of Syria, pray to God for us!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-90889731076814967402013-09-25T07:10:00.002-07:002013-09-25T09:19:20.082-07:00Being, Consciousness, Bliss [Review]<div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDqbughPm0ykW0SCWqF4wJsCpILanXicfZY-ShYUZv1goH2ulbmpGVGL3CClR7S6zjgCLooNqepFU4Jg9IL_KviQLSQpOpBazeHKAqHhb1eREmX3-g13ObUR5u5GKA-8nIxXEwgxhFNRE/s1600/The-Experience-of-GodBeing-Consciousness-Bliss.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDqbughPm0ykW0SCWqF4wJsCpILanXicfZY-ShYUZv1goH2ulbmpGVGL3CClR7S6zjgCLooNqepFU4Jg9IL_KviQLSQpOpBazeHKAqHhb1eREmX3-g13ObUR5u5GKA-8nIxXEwgxhFNRE/s320/The-Experience-of-GodBeing-Consciousness-Bliss.jpg" width="213" /></a>Astonishingly, given the somewhat deceptive (or perhaps inept) marketing of the book, this was David Bentley Hart's best book to date, which is saying something monumental. What neither the title, nor the jacket cover, nor even the blurb reviews reveal is that the book is primarily a relentless, blistering attack on the superstitions and credulous fideisms of materialism. Over and against this decrepit and impoverished philosophy of reality, and in response to its inept attempts to demystify the world, Hart turns to the common deposit of theistic metaphysical tradition for the arresting and compelling antidote. </div>
<div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In the mystery of being, in the mystery of consciousness, and in the manner that they blissfully coinhere as a surfeit of physical reality, the Supernatural, the Absolute, the Good, Beauty -- in a word -- God is immediately present to us in every moment. Yet we dull and numb ourselves to this reality in innumerable ways, but especially through the barbarisms of the 'mechanical philosophy' that we have inherited from 'the Enlightenment'. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As for the attempts of naturalism to sweep away such an obvious reality, Hart is insistent all such attempts are pitifully incoherent and suffer massive -- almost certainly insuperable -- explanatory deficiencies. While the traditional metaphysical arguments for God -- arguing from contingency to a necessary and absolute ground of being, for example -- are comparatively sublime with scarcely any of the objections lodged against them being worth serious consideration.<br />
<br />
According to Hart, most materialistic attempts to deal with the question of being either try to dismiss the central question -- namely "why is there something rather than nothing?" -- as a fallacy of grammar or as ultimately unintelligible (it clearly is not), or to posit that the sum total of contingent, physical reality might somehow (magically and irrationally) add up to the source of its own being, and not itself be contingent. And that's when they're not being <em>really</em> sloppy, confusing cosmology for metaphysics and making simplistic category errors such as mistaking a quantum vaccuum for 'nothing.'</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Similarly impotent are the physicalist accounts of consciousness, which Hart sees as an undeniably immaterial datum, and the most primordial one of them all, present to each of us in every moment and upon which all other realities that we perceive are dependent. Hart claims there is an infinite qualitative abyss between the neurochemical events which consciousness is dependent upon and consciousness as experienced, such that no number of purely quantitative mechanical steps could ever give rise to this peculiar and fortuitous subjective interiority, which each of us owes all our knowledge, experience, and awareness to. Hart writes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Most attempts to provide an answer [to the question of consciousness] without straying beyond the boundaries of materialist orthodoxy are ultimately little more than vague appeals to the power of cumulative complexity: somehow, the argument goes, a sufficient number of neurological systems and subsystems operating in connection with one another will at some point naturally produce unified, self-reflective, and intentional consciousness, or at least (as strange as this may sound) the illusion of such consciousness. This is probably just another version of the pleonastic fallacy, another hopeless attempt to overcome a qualitative difference by way of an indeterminably large number of gradual quantitative steps. Even if it is not, it remains a supposition almost cruelly resistant to scientific investigation or demonstration, simply because consciousness as an actual phenomenon is entirely confined to the experience of a particular mind, a particular subject. </blockquote>
With this being the case, materialist accounts of consciousness reek of magical thinking. Even if we grant that one day neurobiology will exhaustively map every aspect of the brain, science will have not come a step closer to puncturing through the veil and entering into the content and interiority of the purely subjective conscious mind. One can only deny that such an immaterial, or supernatural, reality exists -- if one can at all -- by sacrificing reason itself on the alter of materialism in a self-immolating act. A high price to pay, indeed, if one is to prize 'reason' and 'empiricism' above all else, as so many scientistic materialists putatively do. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Just as impossible to account for on materialistic terms is the innate human longing for the Good and the concomitant abhorrence of evil, which materialists must deny as being in any sense 'real' in favor of them being illusions in a deterministic universe (though few of them seem willing to fully come to terms with this logical inevitability). If you can't but do what you are bound by the laws of physics to do -- as you are no more than matter in motion -- no materialistic morality can ever amount to anything more than nonsense. As Hart puts it:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A naturalist morality is a manifest absurdity, something rather on the order of a square circle, and it requires almost heroic contortions of logic to make the notion seem credible. Fortunately, the human will to believe is indefatigable.</blockquote>
<div>
Attempts to ground morality in evolutionary incentives (once materialism has cleared the hurdle of being and consciousness, which it necessarily can not do) are ultimately tragically resistant to empirical verification, and must always remain just-so fables. This doesn't mean that it's completely false that certain evolutionarily advantageous 'moral' traits are preserved and passed along via natural selection acting on genetic material, but this hardly is an account of the actual nature of human morality as it exists. From a materialist perspective what would be called 'moral' can't be other than that which is evolutionarily advantageous, and our genetic so-called 'self-interest' (wherever it comes from, and whatever it is exactly), is tied to the interest of, for example, our tribe. Hence a degree of selflessness and cooperation (at least within the tribe, though usually not between tribes) is more likely to ensure the passing on of our genetic material. This hardly explains the origin of the moral impulse, however, rather only its transmission within the species. And even then, only to an incomplete degree, when we consider the many ways that the moral impulse far exceeds, and often contradicts, the dictates of evolutionary incentives. The evolutionary explanations of this phenomenon are quite clearly ludicrous attempts to force the data into a conceptual scheme which has no room for it. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Central to Hart's argument is the claim that most of the contemporary debates surrounding God do not have as their subject the God of traditional theistic metaphysics, but rather some particularly potent cosmic demiurge, or watchmaker god, or an especially large and benevolent gentleman who is perhaps the first of a long series of causes, but not Being as such which gratuitously donates being to beings. Not the God who is utterly transcendent and fully imminent, filling all things, yet beyond all things. Not the fullness of actuality, in whom we live, and move, and have our being. etc. Once such a confusion is eliminated, and the content of the concept of God is understood as it has widely and traditionally understood by the venerable contemplative theistic traditions, most of the contemporary debates melt away into utter irrelevance.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Hart covers a great deal more than I've hinted at here: teleology and intentionality in consciousness as necessary elements of reality, and without which we can't begin to reason; the self-defeating and demonstrably false assertion of scientific empiricism having an exclusive claim to genuine knowledge; qualia as a datum inexplicable by naturalism; the materialist failure to dispel with free will; the manner in which being, consciousness, and bliss interrelate and are not only metaphysical explanations of God, but also phenomenological explanations of the human encounter with God; the absolute poverty of materialistic aesthetic accounts; mystical experience visa vis contemplative prayer and asceticism as the only 'empirical' means for investigating 'the God claim'. Just to name a few. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Rising above the nature of the current debate on such issues -- both sides of which usually share covertly atheistic presuppositions -- Hart's lucid argumentation, acerbic wit, and stellar prose masterfully combine to produce one of the most stunning, potent, holistic, and engaging arguments for belief in God and against materialism that I've ever read. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
-------------------------------------------</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
P.S. In one of the blurb reviews advertising the book, Hart was said to have been advocating an 'ecumenical theism'. Happily, that's not exactly accurate. To an Orthodox -- or any religious particularist, really, but especially to Orthodox -- such language can sound like syncrenistic sloppiness, if not heresy. Hart makes clear in the introduction that in attempting to define 'God' as precisely as possible, and in accordance with the overlapping metaphysical wisdom of all the venerable theistic traditions, he isn't advocating a milquetoast relativism or against particularism, and certainly not denying the truth of the full revelation of God in Christ. Rather, he is only attempting to provide clarity to an essentially philosophical debate that is desperately in need of it. He is quick to note that, such philosophical knowledge <i>about</i> God, is not the same as union with God or knowledge <i>of</i> God, in accordance with Orthodox teaching.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-31478009709877867232013-09-23T08:41:00.001-07:002013-09-23T10:23:49.867-07:00Žižek, Tony Jones, and 'Christian Atheism'A little over a week ago, Tony Jones hosted <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2013/09/13/slavoj-zizek-and-the-illusion-of-religion/">a piece</a> that was meant to service as an introduction to Slavoj Žižek, particularly his 'Christian' or 'theological' thought. I took issue with the piece, primarily with the notion that it's acceptable for Christians to get their theology from atheists, or for atheists to do Christian theology in any legitimate sense. Such an idea is, of course, absurd. And this seemed to me like a fairly elementary and obvious point to make, eminently supported by scripture and orthodox Christian tradition. But I also know that one of the dogmas of this particular brand of progressive, postmodern, heretical Christianity is a kind of infinite openness to ideas and 'dialogue', regardless of the provenance of said ideas (blatantly ignoring scriptural warnings against such absolute openness i.e. Romans 12:2, 2 Cor. 6:14-18, Gal 5:1, 1 Tim. 4, 2 Tim. 2:16-17, 2 Tim 4:3-4, etc.). Wanting to disabuse anyone who might listen of such a dangerous openness in theology -- especially with regard to atheists, worldly speculators and conjecturalists -- I happily obliged when Tony offered to host a response by me.<br />
<br />
To Tony's immense credit, and contrary to <a href="http://nateduffy.blogspot.com/2012/03/emergent-hypocrisy.html">the actions of one of his brother's in arms</a>, he published <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2013/09/21/actually-slavoj-zizek-doesnt-believe-in-god-at-all/">my response</a> which he disagreed with, and in which I even take a pot-shot at him. This demonstrates a true openness to dialogue and opinions from all quarters, even the traditionalist-conservative quarter, and so consistency with his principles (although it also reveals a bit of a masochistic streak).<br />
<br />
There was a fairly large dust-up in response to my piece (on Twitter, primarily), as many of Tony's readers -- quite understandably, given their vantage point -- took issue with the piece and with Tony's decision to run it. Tony <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2013/09/23/what-happened-on-the-blog-this-weekend/">replied here</a> in defense of running the piece, and I agree with his defense.<br />
<br />
However, while defending his running of the piece he also briefly noted why he disagrees with it. He writes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The bottom line is that Nathan thinks that, while interesting, Christians should never look to Žižek for theological insight. In fact, he thinks that Christians should never take any theological insight from an atheist.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Well, I think that’s hogwash. (Nathan defends this as a teaching of the Orthodox Church, but I have not been able to substantiate that.) Theological insight comes from all sorts of places, atheists included. Indeed, if we’re reliant solely upon the church for theological truth, then two things are true: 1) God is bound exclusively to one human institution (a laughable idea), and 2) we’re pretty much screwed (because the church is so clearly fallible).</blockquote>
Before defending the idea that Christians ought not turn to atheists for theological insight, (it feels a bit odd typing that) let me first clarify a few things that I'm <i>not</i> saying. I'm not saying that God doesn't reveal himself in a general way through creation. I'm also not saying that God doesn't act in the lives of unbelievers at all. I'm also not saying that non-Christian philosophy is completely useless. None of this, however, means that atheists are capable of anything (truly) good apart from regeneration in the waters of baptism and a subsequent life in Christ, much less are they able to add or somehow contribute to the full revelation of God in Christ through their blasphemous speculations which deny Christ.<br />
<br />
To the extent that worldly philosophy has value, it's that, in its venerable formulations, one can see what St. Justin Martyr -- writing in the 2nd century as a convert from Greek paganism -- referred to as the <i>spermatikos logos.</i> This is the seed of divinity in each human person which can be dimly apprehended through Greek philosophy, for example, which in turn acts as a preparation for the full revelation of God in Christ and his Church.<br />
<br />
But this is only the case where Greek philosophy dimly apprehended the truth of divinity, not where it raged directly against it in utter folly (Psalm 14:1), or where it continued to do so even when confronted with Christ and his Church. And this is the crucial distinction. In the latter case, the Church (and the Bible) unequivocally rejects the notion that there can be any parity or fellowship between the Church which confesses Christ come in the flesh and risen from the dead, and those who deny it. Hear 1 John 4:3 :<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist.</blockquote>
Žižek confesseth not. Game over.<br />
<br />
Of course, one could multiply at will references to the New Testament's stark and undeniable dichotomy between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of the 'god' of this world (2 Cor. 4:4) i.e. Satan. See: James 4:4, John 16:33, 1 John 2:17, Rev. 3:15-17, etc. And if 'the world' (in this sense) does not include the spirit of antichrist which denies Christ is God in the flesh, then there is no such thing as 'the world' in this sense, and the Bible is speaking nonsense. This seems a high price to pay in order to defend an illicit and wicked desire to marry truth with error, darkness with light. Speaking of which, we could also turn to the most clear and unequivocal scriptural rebuke of Jones and co.'s <i>modus operandi</i> in 2 Cor. 6:14-18.<br />
<br />
As for whether my position is that of the Orthodox Church, I would want to tread carefully in claiming to speak for the Church. Though I would say that, in the <a href="http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/63538.htm">Church's vindication of the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas</a> in the 14th century over the heresy of Barlaam, the purity of heart obtained through the healing graces of the Church was defended as <i>essential</i> for genuine theology. The impotence of philosophy to lead to true illumination was also confirmed by the Church, in the course of this controversy. Which would all be relevant here, both as a rebuke of Žižek and his 'Christian' defenders.<br />
<br />
One could go on to note that the actual content of Žižek's 'theological' speculations (if he truly held to them), and not just the method used to arrive at them, are formally rejected heresies. One of the earliest and most significant heresies in Church history, propagated in the 4th century by the bishop Arius, was that Christ was divine, yes, but a created and subsidiary divinity, and not consubstantial with the Father. At Nicaea, his view was anathematized by the Church as incompatible with the apostolic deposit of faith, at which point it became impossible for Arian speculation to count as true Christian theology. If Arius confessed Christ's divinity (albeit as a created demigod), and was and is anathema, as are any who follow him, how much more of those who deny that God even exists?<br />
<br />
Granted, with this last move I've made an argument that appeals to a particular biblical, apostolic, orthodox ecclesiology. And therefore I might be talking past those who hold to the anti-ecclesiology of protestantism, especially in its progressive-postmodern-evangelical variant. <i>C'est la vie.</i> One can only hope they turn from this error as swiftly as they ought to turn and flee from the error of mixing God's truth with a lie.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-52504380992883964612013-08-12T15:03:00.000-07:002013-08-12T15:03:10.797-07:00On Behalf of AllI've happily accepted an invitation to be a contributor to the top-notch Orthodox blog <a href="http://www.onbehalfofall.org/">On Behalf of All</a>. My <a href="http://onbehalfofall.org/2013/08/12/is-jesus-a-baptist/">first contribution</a> is a response to <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/08/is-jesus-a-baptist">Timothy George at First Things</a> on the question of 'Is Jesus a Baptist?' Check it out. Also be sure to bookmark, add to your reading feed, follow on Twitter (@OnBehalfOfAll) or Facebook, or otherwise keep track of On Behalf of All!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-56562057073495266432013-08-06T20:34:00.001-07:002013-08-06T20:58:48.817-07:00Top 10 Things Protestants Should Know About Orthodoxy<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjRaZmzDDvsKw5VQuQcUTe16xfYXu-HauT4RhEKpoLqAbYF864JtUnRCO8pIlYGTvbDyMoya3MSmbfAtoGFAwSW58wexLi1b7NzyjIjbK00rtDWt_Fsaa33dCwZDVD48CQNJ98X-8Oc9U/s1600/MysticalChurch.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="319" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjRaZmzDDvsKw5VQuQcUTe16xfYXu-HauT4RhEKpoLqAbYF864JtUnRCO8pIlYGTvbDyMoya3MSmbfAtoGFAwSW58wexLi1b7NzyjIjbK00rtDWt_Fsaa33dCwZDVD48CQNJ98X-8Oc9U/s320/MysticalChurch.jpg" width="320" /></a>A trad Roman Catholic follower of mine on Twitter asked me to compose my own version of <a href="http://www.davidjdunn.com/2013/08/05/top-ten-things-every-protestant-should-know-about-eastern-orthodoxy/">this list of 10 things Protestants should know about Orthodoxy</a>, since I had commented that my own list would be quite different. While Dunn's list is pithy and lighthearted, mine is somewhat more self-serious. I'm sure there are similar lists out there written by more knowledgeable people, and these points will be quick glosses of subjects which could be expounded upon in great length, but here is my list.<br />
<br />
<b>1)</b> <b>Tradition.</b><br />
<br />
Holy Tradition is how the faith is passed on. The Bible is not the sole criterion of the faith, rather it is one aspect -- though an especially glorious, radiant, central, and exalted aspect -- of Holy Tradition. The Church, the Body of Christ, is a living organism and her faith is a living faith. The Holy Spirit is not only operative and authoritative within the Church when the Apostles were putting pen to papyrus, but also when they taught by their word (2 Thess. 2:15), when they convened councils to make decisions on controversial matters in the Church (Acts 15), when they are passing on their authority to others (1 Tim. 4:14; Acts 6:2-6), and when they decided on the canon of Scripture. The New Testament is the written expression of apostolic tradition, and as such is authoritative as an extension of the authority of the Church which Christ established (Matt. 16:18-19). But this authority can never be divorced from the Church, and the Bible is true and authoritative to the extent that the Church wrote, canonized, interprets, and teaches it. These functions are integrally related, which is why you can't take one of them (the canon, for example), and divorce it from its source and life, which is the Church.<br />
<br />
Because the following is true, Ecumenical councils and their canons are received as authoritative and binding on the whole Church (though their application is left to the Bishops). This is also why the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is the definitive statement of Faith of the Orthodox Church, being the product of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils.<br />
<br />
<b>2)</b> <b>Salvation.</b><br />
<br />
Salvation is not a juridical imputation of Christ's righteousness which transpires the moment one first 'believes'. Certainly Christ's incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension <i>are</i> our salvation, and it is only by Christ's gracious acts in history that salvation is possible. Without Christ we would be dead in our sins and without hope. And it is through faith that we receive His grace, but faith is not mere intellectual assent, it's also faith<i>fulness;</i> living in accordance with that faith in the Church. Individuals can truly respond to the free gift of salvation that Christ offers, or reject it. Responding means an ongoing process of being saved, and being saved means union with Christ in his Church through the sacraments and by the Holy Spirit. The Orthodox Church calls this process <a href="http://onbehalfofall.org/2013/02/28/an-introduction-to-the-orthodox-doctrine-of-salvation-or-theosis/">theosis</a>. We are called to become "partakers of the divine nature", in the words of St. Peter. With this being the case, there is no 'assurance of salvation', and instead we are called to "work out our salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12).<br />
<br />
<b>3)</b> <b>Sacramentality.</b><br />
<br />
The Orthodox Church is highly sacramental. The sacraments of the Church are the mysteries of Christ through which his grace is made incarnate in the Church by the Holy Spirit. The grace of Christ is offered freely to all through his Church, and the sacraments are the means by which it comes to us. In Baptism, the priest calls the Holy Spirit down onto the waters and we mystically join in Christ's death and resurrection, putting off the old man, being grafted into the Body of Christ, and thereby being made into new creatures. The change that is effected is not merely an outward sign of an inward change of heart, but it is in the waters of the font that an actual, real ontological change is affected. This is why it's necessary that we are baptized (John 3:5), and it's true that baptism actually removes our sins (Acts 2:38). The Eucharist is the body and blood of our Lord (Matt. 26:26-28; John 6; 1 Cor. 11:27-29), given for the healing of soul and body and the binding together and sustaining of the Church. The Orthodox Church recognizes 7 'official' sacraments (Baptism, Chrismation, Holy Communion, Holy Orders, Confession, Marriage, Holy Unction), though it doesn't teach that sacramentality is confined to these things.<br />
<br />
<b>4)</b> <b>Ecclesiology.</b><br />
<br />
The Orthodox Church is the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church" referred to in the Nicene creed. It is the Church that Christ founded. The authority that Christ gave to the Apostles is passed down by apostolic succession within the Church -- that is by the laying on of hands to the successors of the Apostles, the Bishops. The Orthodox Church has uniquely and exclusively maintained apostolic succession <i>and</i> fidelity to the faith as handed down by Christ and the apostles, without addition or subtraction. Orthodoxy rejects the innovative 'branch theory' of ecclesiology which holds that the Church is invisible. In the first millenia of the Church, there were no 'denominations': there was the Church and schismatic sects who willfully departed from the Church. St. Paul writes that there "must be heresies among you" so that the truth can manifest itself (1 Cor. 11:19). And so it is today. The Orthodox Church also rejects Roman ecclesiology (as it developed and came to a head in the 11th century) which holds that the pope is the head of the Church, with a special claim to authority over the other bishops. The head of the Church is Christ and all the bishops share equally in the apostolic inheritance, despite the bishop of Rome's exalted place of <i>honor</i> in the early church.<br />
<br />
<b>5)</b> <b>Anti-innovation.</b><br />
<br />
The Orthodox Church teaches that the faith was delivered "once for all to the Saints" (Jude 1:3) and that "Jesus Christ is the same today, yesterday, and forever" (Heb 13:8). As such, Orthodoxy rejects in principle innovations in doctrine, praxis, or worship as deviations from Holy Tradition. If it's new, it can't be true. Various small-t traditions -- some good, some neutral, some bad -- obviously exist within every local church and differ from culture to culture and age to age. It's important to distinguish these variable traditions of men which exist in the church from infallible Holy Tradition, the Tradition of God. Guidance for such discernment is provided by the teachings of the Church.<br />
<br />
<b>6)</b> <b>Authority.</b><br />
<br />
Bishops are the recipients of the fullness of Apostolic authority. They are the locus of authority in the Church, and a priest's authority is derivative of that of the bishop. Not everyone who hears the Gospel preached and responds positively thereby becomes an authority on the things of Christ and the Church. We don't see this in the New Testament. This is uniquely the ministry of the priesthood. Just as Christ chose twelve to be his disciples, so his chosen and set-apart disciples choose and ordain those who are to receive the apostolic ministry of the priesthood. However, this authority is also subject to what is called 'conciliarity', meaning lay people have a role in receiving decisions of bishops as in accordance with the rule of faith. The 'amen' of the people is a necessary element, as this prevents rogue councils of bishops from legitimizing heresy, for example.<br />
<br />
Because the Church possesses the mysteries of Christ by the Holy Spirit, and its teachings are therefore authoritative, the proper disposition of any member of the Church -- lay person, deacon, monastic, or bishop -- is one of humble obedience. If the Church teaches something that you don't agree with, then it's incumbent upon you to acknowledge that you are wrong, give up your personal opinion and submit to the authority of the Church.<br />
<br />
<b>7)</b> <b>Asceticism</b><br />
<br />
Asceticism -- persistent repentance, prayer, fasting, labor (physical and spiritual), self-denial and obedience etc. -- is the authentic mode of Christian spiritual life, and not something that is "just for monastics" or -- a much worse slander -- not Christian at all. It is the means by which we enter into the life of Christ and partake of his suffering, taking up our cross daily and denying ourselves. We're called to not only thankfully receive suffering and hardship as it comes to us as a means for our own growth and upbuilding (though we are so called), but also to willfully search out and walk the path of the cross, which is the path of Christ. The pitfalls along this path -- such as empty outward performance without true inward contrition and humility, or haughty self-righteousness -- are perilous indeed, but it is in walking this path that we are forced to confront such temptations and, by God's grace and our own struggle, overcome them to our own sanctification and the benefit of all we come in contact with.<br />
<br />
Those who are able to devote themselves most fully to a Christian life of asceticism are the monastics, who have a special place in the life of the Church. They devote themselves to prayer for the world, to living a life of obedience and self-abjection for Christ's sake, and it is from their ranks that many of our bishops come from. Monasteries also have an important relationship in maintaining standards for the whole church, which laity look to for inspiration, edification, and example.<br />
<br />
<b>8)</b> <b>Liturgy</b>.<br />
<br />
The worship of the Orthodox Church is liturgical. As with matters of doctrine and morality, how we worship is extremely important and is authoritatively passed down within the Church. Indeed, it is in the services of the Church that theology is actually done. <i>Lex credendi lex orandi</i>. The hymnography, prayers, iconography, liturgical calendar, and architecture of the church all work together to express the truths of -- and draw us into the life of -- the Holy Trinity. The form of worship is closely and intimately bound up with the 'content' of it, and loosing standards on the form inevitably affects content. Examining those traditions where worship is not done in accordance with Church tradition always reveals a corresponding 'loosing' of standards elsewhere -- doctrinally and morally, for example. But such practical concerns are not the main reason for liturgical worship, rather it's because liturgical worship is of apostolic provenance, and the Church is One -- the Saints (and the angels) in heaven worship with us in one accord, and we worship with them. And so we worship how the Saints worshiped when they were alive on earth.<br />
<br />
<b>9)</b> <b>Veneration vs. Worship.</b><br />
<br />
In the Orthodox Church we venerate. We venerate the cross, the Holy Icons, the Holy Gospel, the relics of Saints and other things. Veneration (<i>ghoulia</i> in Greek) is not worship (<i>latreia</i> in Greek), which is reserved for God alone. We venerate Holy items because, as St. John of Damascus says, "I do not worship matter; I worship the Creator of matter who became matter for my sake, who willed to take His abode in matter; who worked out my salvation through matter. Never will I cease honoring the matter which wrought my salvation!"<br />
<br />
<b>10)</b> <b>The Theotokos and All the Saints</b>. <br />
<br />
The Theotokos -- Mary the Ever-Blessed, Most Pure, and Mother of Our God -- has an exalted place in the Orthodox Church. She is the first of all the Saints, and we ask for her Holy intercessions more frequently than any other Saint, and also venerate her in accordance with scripture (Luke 1:48). This is because God found her worthy to be His Mother, and she submitted to His will. Her powerful intercessions are evident in the Gospels as it is through them that Christ performs His first miracle. He tells her it's not the time to do his first miracle, yet when his mother effectively insists, He goes on to perform it anyway (John 2:1-10). If Christ honors His Mother -- and even obeys her! -- shouldn't we do the same? And shouldn't we desire her miraculous intercessions on our behalf? We <a href="http://nateduffy.blogspot.com/2012/11/mary-saints-and-icons-oh-my-journey-to.html">pray to the Theotokos</a> and <a href="http://nateduffy.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-new-catechumen-and-saints-journey-to.html">the Saints</a> because God is the God of the living not the dead (Matt. 22:32; Mark 12:27), and the Saints are alive in Christ. With this being the case, we turn to them for prayer first and foremost because "prayer of a righteous man availeth much" (James 5:16).<br />
<br />
The Saints also edify us through their lives and their writings, by being examples of how to live a Christian life, and a testimony to the authentic reality of the experience of God in the Church. Because the Church isn't a fossilized object waiting to be exhumed, but is a living organism, new Saints are always being made and nourishing the Church with the wisdom of the Holy Fathers. But whether it's a living Saint or a Saint in heaven who we come into contact with through the Tradition of the Church, we should look to them as examples and submit to the wisdom of those who have beheld the true light of Christ.<br />
<br />
-----------------------------------<br />
<br />
For a trad Roman Catholic, much of this will be familiar. My list of 10 things Catholics should know about Orthodoxy would be somewhat different, on the Orthodox view of issues like the filioque, the papacy, liturgical theology, modernism, divine essence and energies as opposed to 'created grace', etc. But, being that I come from a Protestant background and not a Roman Catholic one, those are things I'm also much less equipped to comment on in an illuminating manner.<br />
<br />
Much more could be said on each of the above points, so please forgive any imprecision or mistakes. If anything in the above list is wrong, which is entirely possible, please correct me.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-42074344821930549902013-06-21T18:27:00.001-07:002013-06-21T18:37:57.901-07:00St. Herman of Alaska & The Science of Sciences<div class="separator tr_bq" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOEkalcjXSOMryu-9BFG5W_XO9v3KMmQ5-bfkl7LG6r7zGhFdBmqP3q11Q031sG_vsPO02VUZcSBecYD-EfqpW5RMsvtJWKBMZ8oi7cE8dD5AaC8E62Iq6Rqp-_Rdynu4nGmeNWEjRS-E/s1600/Herman-cover-.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOEkalcjXSOMryu-9BFG5W_XO9v3KMmQ5-bfkl7LG6r7zGhFdBmqP3q11Q031sG_vsPO02VUZcSBecYD-EfqpW5RMsvtJWKBMZ8oi7cE8dD5AaC8E62Iq6Rqp-_Rdynu4nGmeNWEjRS-E/s320/Herman-cover-.jpg" width="228" /></a></div>
In the life of St. Herman titled <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Herman-Wilderness-Russia-Kodiak-ebook/dp/B00A6J9PZQ/">Herman: A Wilderness Saint</a></i>, the following remarkable letter is referenced and, after coming across it, I felt compelled to share it. It was written in 1819 by Simeon Ivanovich Ianaovskii some time after he had become the main ruler of the Russian colonies in America (e.g. Alaska), where St. Herman was the head of the spiritual mission. The letter cites a malady all too common in the modern world -- certainly not unique to early 19th century Russia -- and its cure. Enjoy:<br />
<blockquote>
I was thirty years old when I met Father Herman. It should be mentioned that I trained at a naval college.<b> I knew much science and had read widely but, unfortunately, the science of sciences -- that is, the Law of God -- I hardly understood even superficially and what I did know was theoretical, not applied to life. I was a Christian only in name, while in my soul and in action, I was a free-thinker and a deist. In this I was like almost everyone who has been trained in colleges and official institutions...</b><b><br /></b> What is more, I did not acknowledge the divine nature and sanctity of our religion; I had read many of the godless essays of Voltaire and other philosophers of the eighteenth century.<br />
Father Herman immediately noticed this and wanted to convert me. It was not easy! I had to be convinced, to be shown the holiness of our faith; this is why it required time, knowledge, and the ability to speak well and convincingly.<br />
To my great surprise, <b>this simple uneducated monk, Father Herman, inspired by grace, spoke so forcefully, so wisely, and argued so convincingly that it seemed to me no erudition or earthly wisdom could hold out against his words! Father Herman truly had a great mind, sound thought, and had read many spiritual books; most importantly, he had the grace of God!</b><br />
We spoke unceasingly: about love, about God, about eternity, about the salvation of the soul, about the Christian life, and other things. An unceasing flood of sweet conversation flowed from his mouth!<br />
Through such constant talks and by the prayers of the holy elder, the Lord converted me wholly to the path of truth, and I became a true Christian. For all of this, I am obliged to Father Herman; he is my true benefactor. </blockquote>
O Blessed Father Herman of Alaska, together with all the Saints and the Heavenly Hosts, pray to God that on each of us He will bestow wisdom for our mind, strength for our will, light for our spirit, enabling us to attain to the true peace of life which is from God alone. Amen.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-21730722468410615632013-06-07T10:21:00.002-07:002013-06-07T10:21:46.352-07:00Christ and Nihil"<i>No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.</i>" - Matt. 6:24<br />
<br />
"<i>Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.</i>" - James 4:4<br />
<br />
"<i>I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou were cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth.</i>" - Rev. 3:15-16<br />
<br />
When it comes to God and his Kingdom, there is no halfway allegiance. There is allegiance and defiance; fidelity and apostasy; communion and exile. The verses above are just a small sampling of a consistent theme that runs throughout the New Testament: the Incarnation of the Word of God inaugurates the Kingdom of God on Earth, and this Kingdom stands victorious over and against the kingdom of the "god of this world" (2 Cor. 4:4), i.e. Satan.<br />
<br />
Because God alone -- and participation in His life, the life of the Holy Trinity -- constitutes true being, rejection of this life in favor of kingdom of this world that is passing away, constitutes a turning inward to the Self and self-will, and therefore toward nothingness and non-being. Toward the <i>nihil</i>.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0Hf2RW3ZAkMvBgN3U_uiuTApJUlZSvnCVIO7hri7oXHDz9nmTUffuQH2vTk4WZ5IUDKDDStpkzjjDqnFCakxLy4_-okFgMEBboerZEbItrOKhzBAB0mkHBAcKoHz2_WUXHsX2h6VLxm4/s1600/nihilism.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0Hf2RW3ZAkMvBgN3U_uiuTApJUlZSvnCVIO7hri7oXHDz9nmTUffuQH2vTk4WZ5IUDKDDStpkzjjDqnFCakxLy4_-okFgMEBboerZEbItrOKhzBAB0mkHBAcKoHz2_WUXHsX2h6VLxm4/s1600/nihilism.jpg" /></a>In his short text <i>Nihilism --</i> which was to be but one chapter in his unfinished <i>magnum opus THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND THE KINGDOM OF MAN -- </i>Fr. Seraphim Rose<i> </i>seizes on this fundamental truth and uses it as a matrix for analyzing the condition of the modern world. If rejection of Christ is ultimately a single phenomena, then that phenomena lies behind, underneath, and within every species of unbelief and idolatry. There should be a discernible continuity that unites all who stand opposed to God, whether they know it or not and despite any apparent differences.<br />
<br />
If this is true, then the same force that gives life to Liberalism, Humanism, Scientism, Realism, New-Age spiritualisms, and compromised and worldly Christianities is the same force that gave us Nazism and Bolshevism. The differences between these various phenomena must be a quantitative rather than qualitative one; a difference of degree rather than of kind. And Fr. Serpahim traces the contours of this modern dialectic with acute precision.<br />
<br />
While Fr. Seraphim keenly analyzes the specific instances of the various manifestations of nihilism in the modern world -- in areas of philosophy, politics, religion, and art -- the basic argument is echoed with characteristic verve and brilliance by David Bentley Hart in his magnificent <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/12/christ-and-nothing-28">essay <i>Christ and Nothing</i></a>, which concludes this way:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But we Christians — while not ignoring how appalling such a condition is — should yet rejoice that modernity offers no religious comforts to those who would seek them. In this time of waiting, in this age marked only by the absence of faith in Christ, it is well that the modern soul should lack repose, piety, peace, or nobility, and should find the world outside the Church barren of spiritual rapture or mystery, and should discover no beautiful or terrible or merciful gods upon which to cast itself. With Christ came judgment into the world, a light of discrimination from which there is neither retreat nor sanctuary. And this means that, as a quite concrete historical condition, the only choice that remains for the children of post-Christian culture is not whom to serve, but whether to serve Him whom Christ has revealed or to serve nothing — the nothing. No third way lies open for us now, because — as all of us now know, whether we acknowledge it consciously or not — all things have been made subject to Him, all the thrones and dominions of the high places have been put beneath His feet, until the very end of the world, and — simply said — there is no other god.</blockquote>
Let us then cast ourselves upon the only God Who Is, Christ our true God, and pray that He would have mercy upon us.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-48217733985281574772013-05-28T14:07:00.000-07:002013-05-28T14:07:57.884-07:00California Pilgrimage <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVAD9Gd186UWBJ4no50GjD-Gpx_T-5a2_k0CxR_EonNhsFdqidtHM800nNmK8j8m4xr1u-3RMN6_-Mdt8hgqai7dU_gK2CSLe7ImeicUtUzRMRnYoG5P2soH49RObfLXAyccOw1lP7l8c/s1600/945599_10151593789507708_511302744_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVAD9Gd186UWBJ4no50GjD-Gpx_T-5a2_k0CxR_EonNhsFdqidtHM800nNmK8j8m4xr1u-3RMN6_-Mdt8hgqai7dU_gK2CSLe7ImeicUtUzRMRnYoG5P2soH49RObfLXAyccOw1lP7l8c/s320/945599_10151593789507708_511302744_n.jpg" width="320" yya="true" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
An Orthodox friend of mine recently invited me to join him and some parishioners from his previous parish on a pilgrimage to St. John monastery in Manton, St. Herman monastery in Platina (resting place of Blessed Seraphim Rose), and finally to Holy Virgin cathedral in San Francisco (resting place of St. John Maximovitch of Shanghai and San Francisco). All of my fellow pilgrims had been to other monasteries and on other pilgrimages, while this would be my first time doing either. <br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAMwkw4zAz3nEofN4X5Vt77FN88q08qCSBSYCMcnJ7pDkz0p0m7Hp4YI-TIw9PizgS_13Qc_AFNPeF1EOmBJ3JDzx9MO10tKE3MLw1SkHKZXwj2KvHq6FUt1-y0HWKTjv_yrw4xolMvAo/s1600/innocent.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAMwkw4zAz3nEofN4X5Vt77FN88q08qCSBSYCMcnJ7pDkz0p0m7Hp4YI-TIw9PizgS_13Qc_AFNPeF1EOmBJ3JDzx9MO10tKE3MLw1SkHKZXwj2KvHq6FUt1-y0HWKTjv_yrw4xolMvAo/s200/innocent.jpg" width="150" yya="true" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Fr. Innocent prepping for Matins</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
Last week we departed for Manton and were greeted by the guileless and pleasant superior of the monastery, Fr. Innocent. After we met some of the other monks and settled in, we attended vespers. The next day we went to liturgy at 6 AM, and afterward had breakfast with the monks who ate in silence as one of them reads from the lives of the saints, as is customary. Later we pilgrims helped with some of the monks obediences as they fixed fences, retrieved honey from beehives, and made candles in the workshop (unfortunately I was busy during this time and didn't get any pictures). </div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtnKPrynxh8C7kOMvhZY5EjHBdB1hZEjQw8h2Y1O7tJuym24QeHbe70Pdp8YM49bIltK-M9-GWsladvSFv17HiJAdMZMIUR66YPNh_Z88nW3HqJihhPob1a-mRZDTU3X9AFN_ndT3fLkg/s1600/943269_10151594124392708_1812289185_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtnKPrynxh8C7kOMvhZY5EjHBdB1hZEjQw8h2Y1O7tJuym24QeHbe70Pdp8YM49bIltK-M9-GWsladvSFv17HiJAdMZMIUR66YPNh_Z88nW3HqJihhPob1a-mRZDTU3X9AFN_ndT3fLkg/s320/943269_10151594124392708_1812289185_n.jpg" width="320" yya="true" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Frescoes in the lower church at St. Herman.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
The solitude and beauty of the monastery along with the simple, humble lifestyle of the monks was quite a change of pace from our normal hectic lives, and a welcome one at that. It's conducive to prayer, spiritual reading, and directing of one's attention toward God and heavenly things. It also gives one a different vision on the way that life can (and should) be lived and experienced. </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
Our next stop was St. Herman of Alaska monastery in Platina, which was founded by Fr. Herman and Fr. Seraphim Rose, with the blessing of St. John. St. Herman monastery is on a peacefully secluded piece of land, and the monastery is quite rustic, without any electricity or hot water. Fr. Seraphim and Fr. Herman wanted to live the fully Christian monastic life, in the tradition of the early Orthodox desert monastics, completely forsaking the comforts of the world for Christ's (and their soul's) sake. </div>
<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvqqDOs6Rxokmqy5E50pPyBpiCVIC_bvw275s83I_azmYVwpDZAaqrFk2tjmWSmcgT7nNlkfQBfFEVPkavviWO9PqiLBF7g8TdOPl-iTUaL9Rwvy0HSAofPDR57izqXfDs05mig5mXJFo/s1600/429915_10151596160082708_1438962542_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvqqDOs6Rxokmqy5E50pPyBpiCVIC_bvw275s83I_azmYVwpDZAaqrFk2tjmWSmcgT7nNlkfQBfFEVPkavviWO9PqiLBF7g8TdOPl-iTUaL9Rwvy0HSAofPDR57izqXfDs05mig5mXJFo/s320/429915_10151596160082708_1438962542_n.jpg" width="320" yya="true" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Fr. Nicodemus showing us Fr. Seraphim Rose's kellie</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
It was a joy to experience the beautiful services at Platina in the magnificent Church building -- even when they began at 4:30 in the A.M. When we weren't attending services we took a tour of the grounds with the delightful Fr. Nicodemus as our tour guide, explored (and patronized) the bookstore -- stocked with the writings of Fr. Seraphim and other material that the monks of St. Herman publish themselves, such as Fr Josiah's (my own priest's) newly published book -- or venerated and prayed at Fr. Seraphim's grave.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
Abbot Damascene was eminently hospitable and gracious as were all the monks, showing themselves to have hearts of humility and service. </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
While the treasures of the monastery could continue to be expounded upon, let us turn to our final destination: San Francisco. </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdlYkBFftuvEBtnDJd5rwcxzuSkKuS1QtHnxhWJp-1lnpSOu_Qh2h5LpSGwLKf0t17bYULc2SAJDKMLrk_3K3ApLpxWqL1YjDsInLVlLoF7bWV89WUPnMnniGJsV-XnXXv629dtS5XDu8/s1600/941610_10151596176807708_1748557120_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdlYkBFftuvEBtnDJd5rwcxzuSkKuS1QtHnxhWJp-1lnpSOu_Qh2h5LpSGwLKf0t17bYULc2SAJDKMLrk_3K3ApLpxWqL1YjDsInLVlLoF7bWV89WUPnMnniGJsV-XnXXv629dtS5XDu8/s320/941610_10151596176807708_1748557120_n.jpg" width="320" yya="true" /></a></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
When we arrived in San Francisco we first went to the orphanage that St. John started, which is now a parish. As a very welcome and pleasant surprise, Archimandrite Irenei -- an incredible Orthodox scholar whom I had met at my home parish of St. Andrew once -- was serving at the orphanage (which is now a parish) and gave us a tour of St. John's living quarters, while telling the history of St. John and the orphanage. We took turns sitting in the chair that St. John would sleep in (he never slept in a bed). A chair which has, since his repose, imparted miraculous grace to some sick and injured people. Fr. Irenei went on to serve vespers in the chapel inside the orphanage, which was beautiful and mostly in Russian. </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
The next day we went to the spectacular Holy Virgin cathedral, where the incorrupt relics of St. John reside. After venerating the relics of St. John and placing a letter containing petitions for intercession under his casket -- it's said that he reads them all -- a hierarchal liturgy took place, presided over by his Eminence Archbishop Kyrill, which was as stunningly gorgeous as the iconography on the walls.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEin8Fjp2zGbq04B9Wvd-UBEMcQ3tiRRVSX_k2b2I6c5QplEMberbcGVznq1rzU-oHWmnN8eWaxAb6vMMdbo2_JU87KCD6j1T-dWi-ae9BXTH9hSoZnheB7uPS02cltQn52IRI2BHKfLcpk/s1600/164957_10151595538722708_482849845_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEin8Fjp2zGbq04B9Wvd-UBEMcQ3tiRRVSX_k2b2I6c5QplEMberbcGVznq1rzU-oHWmnN8eWaxAb6vMMdbo2_JU87KCD6j1T-dWi-ae9BXTH9hSoZnheB7uPS02cltQn52IRI2BHKfLcpk/s320/164957_10151595538722708_482849845_n.jpg" width="320" yya="true" /></a>Afterwards we talked with one of the chanters who served during liturgy, a 16 year-old Romanian son of a priest, and he told a remarkable story of how St. John healed his grandmother. She had acquired muscular dystrophy, which had made it difficult for her to get around and caused her to fall down often. This caused grief for the entire family. One night she said the Akathist to St. John before falling into a sweet sleep. While sleeping, she dreamed that St. John came to her with a censor and censed her body. When she woke up she ran around the house and was healed! The family returns to the cathedral once a year to show their gratitude to St. John for his powerful intercession. This is just one of countless such stories that testify to St. John's wonderworking ministry. </div>
<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsxRLyQtjd8KWxCN9Rsi1FsCFXvsPJSSHYR7iqfukOt9QtCcqWw6gUptIM8pOGN1uBJK7jecVtFSVwt4521lpsPETuay9kDdl6Rg41r3qp1hZhdJ5JSEsY0uNofajPf7KTKm9XItMZvnc/s1600/stJohnRelics.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsxRLyQtjd8KWxCN9Rsi1FsCFXvsPJSSHYR7iqfukOt9QtCcqWw6gUptIM8pOGN1uBJK7jecVtFSVwt4521lpsPETuay9kDdl6Rg41r3qp1hZhdJ5JSEsY0uNofajPf7KTKm9XItMZvnc/s320/stJohnRelics.jpg" width="320" yya="true" /></a>Oh Holy Saint of God, St. John Maximovitch of Shanghai and San Francisco, intercede with Christ on our behalf!</div>
</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /> </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-3982460953959468652013-05-16T07:57:00.000-07:002013-05-16T10:35:00.454-07:00The Elusive Outsider Vantage<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgt33EMaAD3hyrtHGzIN3iQNnZX6SnpvzR6jUWs5i7JXD2bVKWn3-PFzD3Xc9JeItuj3p9hqY5z_hURmPyT2CMw7l-5P4RHzfUtieF1vapSly6aq1WQ2mPrNqZ0KubQxTOjX_CoKXv-_zA/s1600/OutsiderTestforFaith.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><img border="0" height="320" pua="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgt33EMaAD3hyrtHGzIN3iQNnZX6SnpvzR6jUWs5i7JXD2bVKWn3-PFzD3Xc9JeItuj3p9hqY5z_hURmPyT2CMw7l-5P4RHzfUtieF1vapSly6aq1WQ2mPrNqZ0KubQxTOjX_CoKXv-_zA/s320/OutsiderTestforFaith.jpg" width="210" /></span></a><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';">How can we know which religion (if any) is true? Are there any objective tests we can devise to help answer the question? Do we need anything other than the standard tools and methods of inquiry that we use to assess any other sort of truth claim? John Loftus thinks such a test is possible and necessary, and he proposes that the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) is the best test available.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">His central argument in the book goes something like this: <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">(1) the fact of vast global religious diversity. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">(2) the fact of cultural, historical, and geographical dependence of religious belief. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">(3) the mutually exclusive nature of many, or most, faiths.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Therefore<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">(4) there's a low probability that whatever your largely culturally determined faith happens to be is the correct one and<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">(5) a disposition of informed skepticism toward one's faith – the same sort of skepticism members of faiths typically have toward other faiths – should be adopted in order to best determine which, if any, faith is the true faith.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">The actual test itself is not terribly controversial, it seems to me. Most believers who were raised in a particular religious tradition, as they grow older and are exposed to a wide world of conflicting opinions and claims, begin to question what they were taught, and go on to apply skeptical scrutiny to those beliefs and teachings to the best of their ability. Most are forced to face, to some degree, these facts and apply this test at some point, whether they realize they're doing so or not. And for those who don't, they should. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">However, even this brand of natural skepticism is not enough for Loftus as he demands the skepticism be of a narrowly circumscribed, scientific bent. He does so, he claims, because science has proven a tool of unparalleled success and fecundity at establishing truths about the physical operations of the universe. But why ought we assume science is the appropriate tool for assessing a question that fundamentally is not a scientific one, namely which religion is the true religion? The tools of science can conceivably aid us in assessing specific claims of supernatural activity in the present-day, and so can, in some manner, contribute to the discussion. But it's a tool that's hardly all-sufficient for the task.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Further, he introduces a false dichotomy when he appeals to the problem of mutual-exclusivity. Namely: either you are a sectarian exclusivist (for whom the problem applies in full), or a syncrenistic liberal who alleviates the difficulty but only by defining God down to some milquetoast non-entity. But he neglects the fact that religions have ways to solve this problem without succumbing to this dichotomy. As an Orthodox Christian, for example, I believe my faith exclusively represents the fullness of the apostolic faith as bequeathed to us by Jesus Christ, but also believe that all other genuine religions possess various degrees of that truth. Roman Catholics possess a greater degree of it than Buddhists, and Buddhists more than atheists, but there is a continuum of truth. This <i>schema</i> – and I'm sure other religions address the problem in a similar way – obviates the problem of mutual-exclusivity and so reduces the need to adopt a stance of severe skepticism. He would no doubt object that these alternative schemes do nothing, in and of themselves, to help answer the question of which is the true faith given his preferred set of data. To which the answer, of course, is: so what? <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Another question that arises is why the facts of religious diversity, dependence, and mutual-exclusivity should be the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">starting point </i>for inquiry as to which religion is true? If we accept that they ought to be, then Loftus' recommendation to adopt a mode of severe skepticism mostly (with some qualifications) follows. But in order for this to be one's starting point of inquiry, one must attempt to strip away everything else that he knows to be true in the arena of religion. If, for example, you have solid evidence that that none of the antique polytheistic gods or god-schemes are true, and you further have strong metaphysical arguments both for the existence of God and that God must be One (to take just a couple of things you could conceivably know), then you can rationally narrow the range of contenders for the one true religion considerably. This is an alternative beginning point of inquiry, in which case the probability that one of that remaining small pool of potential gods is the true God is substantially larger than it would otherwise be, and severe skepticism would not be warranted. Loftus demands we bracket out this sort of knowledge and begin with only the facts of religious diversity, dependence, and mutual-exclusivity, but why? Loftus insists that we attempt a Descartes-esque feat of discarding all our beliefs and knowledge in favor of a couple of his pet data points. But why? He doesn't make a case for this preference – for these particular facts over and against the vast array of other facts available to us – other than that they happen to better serve his agenda.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">The answer to the question of "why the OTF?" he gives later in the book, and it's that "what we've been doing isn't working." By which he means people aren't becoming atheists, or aren't consolidating their view of God, or aren't all converting to the one true religion (whatever it may be) at a fast enough pace for his taste. Which, of course, begs the question. Why would we expect to see any of these things happen if a particular faith was true? Why does their failing to happen constitute "not working"? According to what standard?<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">And even if we wanted to begin with Loftus' preferred set of data, is it even <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">possible </i>for an insider to apply the test? Late in the book Loftus reveals his hand: "Faith is not something Christians can have while seeking to examine the religion that was given to them, since that is not how they approach any of the other religions they reject." In other words, you must first become an atheist (since a Christian without faith is an oxymoron) before you can truly examine the truth of your own or other religions. You must actually <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">become </i>an outsider first, not merely do your best to examine the evidence as if you were one. But this is clearly absurd, for whatever epistemological ground one currently occupies, one is an insider to it. There's no escaping except to some other insider position.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Loftus has an unfortunate penchant for repetition and one of his most oft-repeated assertions is that "Possibility doesn't matter, probabilities do." After the 30th time (literally) he had declared this, or some close variation, I gave up counting. In any case, his point is that absolute certainty does not exist, and the scientific mindset only deals with probabilities. Things that are highly likely to be true and things that are highly likely to be untrue are where the most certain knowledge we can attain (about the physical world) is. Again, not terribly controversial, so I'm not sure why the incessant repetition. The cynic in me suspects some sort of insecurity, but I digress.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Loftus' blind spot, with regard to his probability point, is that, while low probability that a particular faith is true logically follows from his premises – given his arbitrarily selected set of data – this low probability applies to <i>all</i> opinions about the religious question, including the stance that all religions are likely to be false -- his stance. Given the diversity of opinions about religion, their cultural dependence, and mutual exclusivity (and only those facts) the likelihood that any opinion on the matter is correct is very low, including his own. He might then appeal to other facts and knowledge in order to justify his not adopting a stance of extreme skepticism toward his own view, but religious people can do the same thing. So he hasn't advanced the ball a step.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';">In the book he quotes Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga making a similar point: </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';">[T]here is no safe haven here, no way to avoid risk. In particular, you won’t reach safe haven by trying to take the same attitude towards all the historically available patterns of belief and withholding: for in so doing you adopt a particular pattern of belief and withholding, one incompatible with some adopted by others. You pays your money and you takes your choice, realizing that you, like anyone else, can be desperately wrong. But what else can you do? You don’t really have an alternative.</span></div>
</blockquote>
</span><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">Precisely. It's this critique and some closely related objections that Loftus spends most of the second half of the book attempting to ameliorate the effects of, but without any success. In response to Plantinga, without so much as a hint of self-awareness, he avers that "Plantinga fails to understand the huge difference between assenting to a belief and doubting it or denying it. There is no epistemic parity at all between accepting a belief and doubting (or rejecting) it. Doubting (or rejecting) a belief is easy. We all do it all the time. The hard part is to set forth a positive case on behalf of any one particular truth out of the choices available." But Plantinga is obviously making the point that rejecting one belief – especially the particular species of belief that belief in God is – logically entails holding another belief (if not a whole array of other beliefs). In this case, rejecting belief in any religion entails the belief that all religions are very likely false. There exists no neutral epistemological vantage to occupy.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Numerous times throughout the book Loftus accuses believers (usually falsely) of special pleading on behalf of their religion. But in response to these sorts of critiques he special pleads on behalf of atheism or skepticism constantly. When speaking about the cultural dependence of religious belief he cites statistical global maps of religion that show high concentrations of religions by geographic area (as if this could alarm or surprise any informed believer). When responding to the objection that atheism is similarly geographically situated – heavily in places like Sweden and Denmark for example – Loftus gets to the special pleading. He does so by citing wide agreement between scientists on scientific matters, regardless of where they're from. But this would be akin to a Roman Catholic citing broad agreement on many central matters of faith, regardless of where the Catholic lives. It doesn't actually address the critique but moves the goal posts, and equivocates between atheism and science. The mechanical philosophy of the Enlightenment is not a neutral, necessary outcome of science and reason, rather it's just as much a culturally and historically contingent source of belief as being born into a Christian home in the 21st century. And, if you live in much of modern Europe, it's <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">at least </i>as big a culturally determining factor of your beliefs about religion as Christianity is. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Loftus responds to one of his interlocutors on a similar point by declaring that "If he thinks for one moment that, as an outsider, I must take an outsider stance to an informed skepticism based in science and reason, then he needs to show why the science I base my argument on is faulty." Must Loftus first exhaustively demonstrate why each believer's particular faith, or epistemology, is faulty before suggesting they submit to the OTF? Not according to him. He claims the facts of diversity, dependence, and mutual-exclusivity makes this incumbent on any rational believer, irrespective of whatever defenses they may have for their particular faith. Yet these same facts do not make the same thing incumbent on him: one must <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">first </i>knock down his position, <i>then</i> demand he take a stance of skepticism towards it, while the believer must avail himself of no defense before adopting the same stance. Again, he’s special pleading.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Another critical problem with this text is the explicit faith-reason false dichotomy that runs throughout, and comes to a head in the final section. He conceives of faith and reason as diametrically opposed and competing epistemologies. This is fine when preaching to the choir of atheists who share this understanding of ‘faith’, and while remaining incurious about what faith actually is in its essence. But since the stated purpose of the book is to propose a test for believers to apply to their religion and determine whether it's likely true, it would be of more significance if he examined what ‘faith’ has been considered to be throughout history, and across cultures, or at least what current believers – his main audience – understand it to be, and what its relationship to reason is. If he did so, he would see that he's attacking a straw man.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">He would further have to acknowledge that, on this proper understanding of faith, it isn't optional. Every act of reason always-already entails an act of faith. When some of his interlocutors (mostly Christians who tenaciously comment on his blog, apparently) point out that there are many things we do not know by way of scientific or rational inquiry, such as that there is a material world, that we aren't currently in a virtual reality, that our senses are reliable etc. rather we must accept these things on faith, he replies:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Christians retort that I have faith in reason, in skepticism, in science, in my senses, and in the evidence, but what can they possibly mean? Could trusting them be conceivably wrong at times? Yes, of course. We even know this. But there simply is no alternative but to trust them. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div>
</span><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Well, yes. Quite. That's precisely the point. Faith isn't optional.</span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">He further objects to these sorts of objections by, once again, reiterating that we must go on probability, and the probability is extremely unlikely that, for example, the material world doesn't exist. But what tests can be devised to assess the probability that we do not currently reside in a virtual reality? Or that you didn't pop into existence 5 minutes ago with all of your memories intact? By the very nature of these sorts of problems, the probabilities can't even be assessed<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i>at all and so appealing to probability is a nonsensical move. He's right, of course, that we can do nothing but proceed as if our senses can be trusted and as if the material world exists. But to claim that this doesn't constitute a faith commitment requires justification, and he gives none.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Loftus attempts to make hay out of the fact that believers will use science and reason when objecting to the truth claims of other religions, but not their own. Yet he doesn’t demonstrate that science and reason contradict the claims of the Christian faith (his admitted chief target), so we’re left to take his word for it that they do. If these inputs don’t unequivocally disprove the Christian faith or make it very unlikely to be true (and they don’t), then there’s no reason to suspect that believers <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">aren’t</i> critically availing themselves of the tools of science and reason in examining the question of religion. Begging the question, Loftus assumes an answer to the very matter of contention without any justification.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #333333; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">It all gets a bit tedious after a while – the hectoring tone, the argument-by-assertion, the repetition, the special pleading and question-begging, the myopia. And quickly. Despite the book's massive flaws, the central contention – that it's a profitable endeavor to subject our culturally inherited beliefs and biases to critical scrutiny, availing ourselves of the tools of science and reason – is certainly true, and not particularly controversial. The OTF itself can be salvaged from the wreckage of the book if you broaden it to include all manner of beliefs, rather than only explicitly religious ones, and extricate the author's unsubstantiated foregone conclusions which permeate the text. But really, what's the point? In a culture as modern, pluralistic, and secular as our own, this amounts to preaching to the choir. Even if the sermon did happen to echo beyond the pulpit, reaching the apostate faithful out on the street corners and miraculously leading to some of their conversions, they still won't have become outsiders. They'll have done the only thing that's possible: traded one insider vantage for another.</span></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-53368299945005163732013-05-13T13:37:00.002-07:002013-05-13T20:21:35.493-07:00Adaptation & Blue Like Jazz<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcJczz0QbVw99SDrXO4Uf4BeobY5x5e8FHhrtd8bAWNZHLZ4ltitPIlEaIGOsluhHbGXloxjb4jsWy_3WS-R1_knPzpGPmHDKddGq4FM49u1IFgKb5DCPx5LL4B_rczss16qjNRjKqT5Q/s1600/Blue-Like-Jazz-squared.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcJczz0QbVw99SDrXO4Uf4BeobY5x5e8FHhrtd8bAWNZHLZ4ltitPIlEaIGOsluhHbGXloxjb4jsWy_3WS-R1_knPzpGPmHDKddGq4FM49u1IFgKb5DCPx5LL4B_rczss16qjNRjKqT5Q/s320/Blue-Like-Jazz-squared.jpg" width="320" /></a><em>Blue Like Jazz</em> provides a compelling case study on the process of book-to-film adaptation, as it reveals how the conversion between mediums can result, not only in losing something in translation, but in positively inverting the meaning of a text. In the book <em>Blue Like Jazz</em>, Donald Miller unequivocally depicts the quasi-autobiographical character Don's experiences at a secular university -- having been raised Baptist -- as a process of maturation, of being exposed to a wider world of intellectual openness and breadth, of fruitful experiences with new types of people who influence him for the better, of growing in wisdom, of coming to view his religious roots as narrow-minded and hypocritical. Because we are privy to Don's inner monologue in the book, this understanding of his journey is forcefully impressed on the reader and unmistakable. One may have suspicions (as I did) that what's really going on -- as it does for so many new college students -- is the character is succumbing to the seduction of sinful worldliness, and nothing more. The text of the book is ambiguous enough to allow that this is perhaps some minor aspect of what is occuring, but it also makes abundantly clear that ultimately what is transpiring in Don's life is good.<br />
<br />
The translation to film is fascinating because, without Don's inner monologue constantly available, it not only becomes <em>possible</em> to read Don's journey as a straightforward discarding of one's faith in favor of seductive worldliness, but it positively screams to be read in this fashion. There aren't any narrative clues that anything else is happening at all, save perhaps the final 'redemptive' moments that themselves contain decidedly mixed sentiments. The film could practically be used as a Scared Straight propaganda video, showing Christian parents the soul-corrupting dangers of secular University life in modern America. While the book emphatically rejects this narrative and depicts his journey as a process of enrichening, enlightening spiritual and personal growth. <br />
<br />
The character of Penney in the film supplies the only counter to Don's descent into effective unbelief. Her faith fuels her political activism and world-saving pretensions, without her having to always, you know, talk about Jesus and be all religiousy. Don clearly admires Penney and sees her brand of faith as more genuine and mature, but if she were an unbelieving, secular do-gooder it's hard to see what -- if anything -- would be lost about his admiration. She says she read the Bible in an ancient literature class and fell in love with Jesus, exactly as if he were some inspiring literary character and nothing more. <br />
<br />
The final moments do acknowledge Don's grief at his having been ashamed of Christ, but this is consistent with interpreting his college experience as utterly negative and corrupting up to that point. Again, the precise opposite of what the book portrays. <br />
<br />
This disconnect between book and film makes me curious whether this was an intentional move. It probably makes the film more pallettable for a young evagelical audience (the only crowd they could even hope to be appealing to), but it seems to radically compromise on the message of the book to such a degree that one wouldn't think Miller would be OK with it. Yet he wrote the script and was intimately involved with making the film. The only other possibility is that it was unintentional, in which case I would hypothesize it's attributable to an over-familiarity with the source material to the point where the filmmakers assume the audience has (much) more information than they've actually been given. Either way, it's a potent testament to the precarious nature of film adaptation.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-49767129443180391012013-03-05T20:45:00.001-08:002013-03-06T08:30:56.461-08:00The Rublev Trinity Icon<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiV0dm5oRfGVwuBRTQaCk0c_PBRVJeHFUV4JBHSKUg-dDuNe7hkva5ytww_QkqIvfx80C_UuMy_EFSdvNstubGW-od8vva8gMTZL2NlhneuiXOvMCJ0Kgbb400_E4Q4hPZVUsUUyZqvV-U/s1600/413106_w185.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiV0dm5oRfGVwuBRTQaCk0c_PBRVJeHFUV4JBHSKUg-dDuNe7hkva5ytww_QkqIvfx80C_UuMy_EFSdvNstubGW-od8vva8gMTZL2NlhneuiXOvMCJ0Kgbb400_E4Q4hPZVUsUUyZqvV-U/s320/413106_w185.png" width="221" /></a></div>
<div>
I'm going to put in a short, good word on behalf of the excellent book by Heiromonk Gabriel Bunge, <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Rublev-Trinity-Icon-Monk-painter-Andrei/dp/0881413100">The Rublev Trinity</a></i>. In the book, Bunge traces the historical development of the iconographical tradition of Genesis 18, or the Hospitality of Abraham, beginning in the 4th century and culminating in the 14th century with the Russian monk Andrei Rublev's famous icon. Due to the iconoclasm of the 7th and 8th centuries, the extant icons from the first millennium are very limited in number, but they still provide a sense of the various contours of the tradition.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Broadly speaking, the tradition goes from angelological to christological to trinitarian. The visitors are originally portrayed as simply three angels who visit Abraham; as the tradition develops, the central angel begins to be distinguished as a type of Christ; and finally the tradition comes to full fruition by reading the episode as a typographical appearance of the Holy Trinity. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
To refresh your memory, in Genesis 18 Abraham and Sarah are visited by three men, one of whom is called "Lord" by Abraham, and who Abraham and Sarah show hospitality by preparing a meal -- bread and a calf -- for. The Lord goes on to tell Sarah that she will bear a child in her old age, and then reveals to Abraham the coming fate of Sodom of Gomorrah. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Some of the earliest frescoes show the three visitors as angels and as essentially identical, or as slightly different but not in any manner distinguishing one as more significant than the other two. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPaMvc8LpwUputqKipdwiOO9HGMP0umCn6NAauhcyHaVDWRF_iUVGDp1BSLgeAckUuuAQXOqFqmpUEZF8Huynq3x0x7Xji_lB33yyK1M1Jx7gytA1gsBo4jXzI89Pep2bcdV0-MbdROM8/s1600/5thcent-HospAbraham.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="292" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPaMvc8LpwUputqKipdwiOO9HGMP0umCn6NAauhcyHaVDWRF_iUVGDp1BSLgeAckUuuAQXOqFqmpUEZF8Huynq3x0x7Xji_lB33yyK1M1Jx7gytA1gsBo4jXzI89Pep2bcdV0-MbdROM8/s400/5thcent-HospAbraham.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
By the 5th century, certain distinctly christological elements begin to arise. A mosaic from San Vitale, Ravenna (pictured above), placed in the sanctuary of the Church, reveals that the scene is being understood as an Old Testament type of the Eucharist. This is due both to the elements of the icon itself (the calf in the dish, as a type of Christ, the Lamb that was slain "from before the foundation of the world."), as well as its placement within the Church space: in the alter area (where the Holy Gifts are prepared) and adjacent to depictions of the sacrifices of Abel and Melchisdec. This is significant because, according to the Epistle to the Hebrews, "<b>Christ is both simultaneously the sacrifice and the priest:</b> prefigured in Abel (cf. Heb 12:24), Melchisdec (Heb <i>passim</i>), and Isaac (Heb 11.19)." In this icon, the three angels are portrayed as almost identical to each other, with no real distinguishing features.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As the iconographical tradition develops, it begins to single out one of the angels as distinctly representing Christ, while the other two are reduced to angelic companions. This is done by changing the color of the central angel's nimbus to red, then by including a cross within the nimbus and depicting him as much larger than the other two angels, and later by dressing him the way that Christ is usually depicted as dressing in iconography. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
(Again, I'm outlining the iconographical tradition in extremely broad, inelegant strokes. For the full picture, please read this excellent text.)<br />
<br />
A Trinitarian type of depiction begins to take shape long before Andrei Rublev's definitive icon is written, as many icons of the Hospitality of Abraham began to bear the title "The Holy Trinity", along with the depictions themselves becoming more trinitarian. But to save space I want to skip straight to Rublev's icon and discuss it some, with the guidance of Heiromonk Bunge.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjqImY5JGlZhHLb1VO4FYf1gqMEz0pkkBxBGExwoj3BKYEXeNc0s8HWY6iGEB5xlvIchUjozWQqAHPazTguI0YkTtQZbTGnZXxGQEaVOGbQDU6Y900tGeIWHgYViROoK2ZVE0WsIyrgjU/s1600/AndreiRublev5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjqImY5JGlZhHLb1VO4FYf1gqMEz0pkkBxBGExwoj3BKYEXeNc0s8HWY6iGEB5xlvIchUjozWQqAHPazTguI0YkTtQZbTGnZXxGQEaVOGbQDU6Y900tGeIWHgYViROoK2ZVE0WsIyrgjU/s1600/AndreiRublev5.jpg" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
During the development of the tradition, Abraham and Sarah were depicted for a long time, but in Rublev's icon they are no longer there. The observer takes their place as he gazes upon a type of the mystery of the Holy Trinity, and is invited to become a partaker in the inter-Trinitarian life that opens up to him by way of the Eucharist. Because the icon is a festal icon for Pentecost, Bunge reads the icon as a pictorial representation of Christ's Farewell Discourse in John 14-20, <b>which "is completely shot through with the mystery, now being revealed, of the Triune God."</b> </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In that discourse, Our Lord begins by telling his disciples that in His "Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?" Note the house in the background of the icon, which aligns with the figure on the left. This is one indication that the figure on the left is to be read as a type of the Father, which becomes more certain the more we contemplate the icon.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Rublev follows in the iconographical tradition that identifies the central angel as the Son. This is made clear by his dress, which is the same as that of Christ in most iconography. In addition to this, a vertical line through the center of the icon aligns the central figure with the calf in the chalice, as well as the tree in the background, which Bunge reads as an image of the Tree of Life and the Cross. Another visual cue is that the outlines of the bodies of the outer angels form a second chalice, within which the central angel sits, further deepening the Eucharistic theme.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
One interesting thing that I learned from this book is that, in the process of recovering the icon from being painted over, one of the two fingers of the central angel was added on later. Originally, the only finger extended was that which now appears to be the middle finger, but is actually the index finger. This is significant because the gesture of the central figure is actually pointing at the chalice, and past it to the third figure, the angel on the right that represents the Holy Spirit. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The angel on the left inclines his head toward neither of the other two, while they both incline theirs in the same angle toward him. This is a visual depiction of the fact that, in concert with orthodox Trinitarianism, the Father is the fountainhead -- the <i>monarchia</i> -- of being, from whom the Son is eternally begotten and from whom the Spirit eternally proceeds. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Further, the figure on the left is clothed such that no arm is 'free', while the Christ-figure's right arm is uncovered, and the Holy Spirit's left arm is. This is another means for distinguishing the figures, and draws on the venerable, orthodox formula of St. Irenaeus of Lyons that says that <b>Christ and the Spirit are the Father's "two hands" who do the Father's work within salvation history. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The gestures of each further indicate truths about the inter-Trinitarian life that Bunge more thoroughly explicates.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Bunge also points out that, while the table with the chalice on it is obviously a type of the alter and the Eucharist, the perspective is reversed. That is, we aren't looking into the alter from the angle that laity are accustomed to, from the West looking East, rather the perspective is from behind the alter looking West, as Christ stands before the alter as our great High Priest. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The last figure in the background, the rock which lines up with the figure on the right, most likely originally had a crack in the middle of it, according to Bunge. This would be to indicate the rock that split for Moses in the desert and poured forth water for Israel to drink (Exodus 17:6). The rock being a type of Christ, and the water which flows from the split a type of the Spirit. The sending of the Spirit being the culmination of the Johannine Farewell Discourse, and apropos of this being an icon for Pentecost.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
While most of what I've highlighted focuses on the manner that the figures are distinguished in relation to each other, just as significant is that they are depicted as the same size with identical facial features, which is an expression of the consubstantiality and equality of the persons of the Godhead. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The beauty and the mystery of this icon run much deeper than my outline do any sort of justice to, so please read the book if the subject piques your interest. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Art-Icon-Theology-Beauty/dp/0961854553">The Art of the Icon: A Theology of Beauty</a>, </i>Paul Evdokimov reads the Rublev Trinity in an extremely bizarre manner, completely out of sync with everything I had come to understand about it and seemingly contradicting some of these these obvious facts about the icon, especially in the context of the iconographical tradition. Specifically, Evdokimov identifies the central angel as <i>the Father</i>, rendering his reading quite incoherent, from my perspective. Which is not to disparage that text as a whole, as it is quite profound, but Bunge's <i>The Rublev Trinity </i>provides a richer and more accurate reading of this particular icon, substantiated by tracing the tradition that lead up to its production.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-69925851236948242272013-02-28T18:58:00.003-08:002013-02-28T20:17:31.472-08:00Natural Law and Same-sex MarriageDouglas Wilson and Andrew Sullivan had a debate on gay marriage last night. I assume that video and audio will be coming soon. I disagree with central aspects of <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/2013/02/27/gay-marriage-and-christian-imagination/">Peter Leithart's take on it</a>, even without having seen the debate yet. Primarily I disagree with Leithart's bizarre assertion that "the only arguments [Christians] have are theological ones." <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Marriage-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225">What is Marriage</a></i> by Robert P. George and friends is sufficient on its own to put that notion to bed.<br />
<br />
Given a <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/2013/02/20/natural-law-and-supernatural-ends/">previous</a> and <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/2013/02/28/unnatural/">subsequent</a> post, it's clear Leithart has <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/article/2013/02/is-ought-and-natures-laws-1">David Bentley Hart's most recent piece</a> -- on the futility of natural law arguments in the public square -- in the front of his mind, here. Which would be fine, except Leithart seems to be taking Hart's perfectly cogent argument and distorting it for strange ends. When two parties share basic metaphysical assumptions (as Wilson and Sullivan do, putatively), Hart's argument is largely inapplicable to that particular situation. Hart never suggests that natural law reasoning can claim no valid purchase between and among fellow Christians, who are committed to certain shared assumptions and principles. His point is about the inability of natural law reasoning to <i>cut across</i> -- and demand fealty from -- those who operate outside those fundamental presuppositions. This in addition to the idea that such arguments -- even if they may be valid in individual circumstances, as here -- when their total force is pitted against certain monstrous cultural currents, they will prove ultimately impotent.<br />
<br />
While waiting for the actual debate footage to roll out, I read <a href="http://www.dougwils.com/Sex-and-Culture/the-gist-of-my-prepared-remarks.html">Douglas Wilson's prepared comments</a>, which seem pretty devastating for Sullivan. Though George and friends are more precise, and though they marshal a wider array of strong arguments, Doug's rhetorical flair serves him well here. Both George and Wilson contend that marriage revisionists (or SSM advocates) are left with no cogent grounds for rejecting polygamy, given their stated case in favor of SSM. That Sullivan believes “monogamy is central to all marriage”, and yet is indignant that others believe the same about sexual complementarity, is stunning hypocrisy and utterly arbitrary. “My arbitrary discrimination against consenting adults who are in love and who want to get 'married' is OK, but yours isn't!” This is Andrew Sullivan. And Wilson teases this hypocrisy out brilliantly.<br />
<br />
Polygamy actually has a much more robust track record of being accepted and codified by many societies throughout history, so it's much more difficult to make the case -- from a detached anthropological vantage -- that monogamy is <i>inherent</i> to what marriage is than it is for sexual complementarity. And the Biblical record (taken apart from Holy Tradition, which neither party here has high regard for) is infinitely more amenable to polygamy than it is to homosexual marriage. (Although, with the light of the Church, both are equally out of bounds.)<br />
<br />
With that said, this only shows that Andrew Sullivan and most marriage revisionists are inconsistent in their reasoning and application of their principles. This doesn't cut to the heart of the matter, like <i>What is Marriage?</i> does. WIM goes on to deal with the consistent, principled libertarian who says "yes, polygamy is fine too", or "get the state out of marriage altogether" and shows why they're wrong as well. Such is the nature of live debates, I suppose. That is: relatively limited and inadequate. Still, I'm glad the issue is being debated seriously in public forums by personalities of stature.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-38106588593259842062013-02-18T14:19:00.001-08:002013-02-18T14:25:32.590-08:00The Face of God -- Pagan Antiquity and Christianity<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvZLJo9VE7TCDqQEHvtedE-bsGoUjACNhI6q7AH1u_DBDuNbfTAa163RZLzH70UZ9kzk35MEwEEs60xB4ObAWfkGEYmATMKl8cmjdlTvfcpGapW7WK83Uc0LCxh_Im2ijr7rjO549AINM/s1600/The_Resurrection_of_Jesus_Christ.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvZLJo9VE7TCDqQEHvtedE-bsGoUjACNhI6q7AH1u_DBDuNbfTAa163RZLzH70UZ9kzk35MEwEEs60xB4ObAWfkGEYmATMKl8cmjdlTvfcpGapW7WK83Uc0LCxh_Im2ijr7rjO549AINM/s320/The_Resurrection_of_Jesus_Christ.jpg" width="240" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Icon of the Resurrection of Our Lord</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Over at <a href="http://onbehalfofall.org/">On Behalf of All</a>, Vincent Martini <a href="http://onbehalfofall.org/2013/02/16/the-resurrection-of-jesus-christ-and-the-myths-of-mystery-cults/">recently posted</a> on the topic of the resurrection of Christ and the charge by skeptics that this event is a myth that was borrowed and re-imagined from pagan mystery cults. Drawing heavily on N.T. Wright's scholarship in <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Christian-Origins-Question-Vol/dp/0800626796/">The Resurrection of the Son of God</a></i>, Vincent points out that the "dying and rising" gods of said cults were gods whose "resurrections" are cyclical and are linked to the perpetual cycles of life and death within nature. Appeasing these gods or attempting to commune with them had the chief purpose of ensuring a prosperous harvest. As Martini and Wright both point out, this is somewhat a far cry from the resurrection of the Incarnate Son of God, the 2nd person of the Trinity, who conquers death itself and in whom the Kingdom of God is made manifest on the Earth.<br />
<br />
Skeptics are quite fond of pointing out the similarities between Christianity and certain mystery cults of antiquity, in order to insinuate that the similarities are (somehow) evidence of Christianity being some sort of fraud or myth. But these similarities are often cherrypicked from a wide range of beliefs and cults, omitting all those which bear no resemblance, and focusing on anything that has even a superficial resemblance. The result is usually a drastic exaggeration of the actual parallels and overlap.<br />
<br />
In addition, there is often a historical confusion over which direction the influence is running in. Many ancient religions and cults were influenced by the spread of Christianity, and adopted elements into themselves. Shoddy amateur scholarship that pollutes the internet is prone to see any similarity and falsely infer that the influence necessarily ran in the other direction, since paganism in general preceded Christianity.<br />
<br />
With all that said, to the extent that there is some legitimate overlap between certain elements of Christian worship, piety, and devotion and that of certain pagan cults, this is hardly surprising and is no challenge to the truth of Christianity.<br />
<br />
In the February 2013 issue of First Things, Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/article/2013/01/seeing-the-god">addresses this topic from this angle</a>.[1] Granting that there are more substantial similarities than some Christians usually feel comfortable admitting -- sacramental initiation rites which are supposed to conquer the power of death, for example -- Hart notes that it's a false inference from these facts to the story of Christ being false or somehow stolen from the pagan religions.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
There was a brief period in the early heady days of anthropology of religion when James Frazer was still in fashion, during which it was regarded by many as something of a scandal that so many seemingly common elements could be found in both Christianity of the early centuries and many of the pagan devotions of late antiquity. To this day in fact, there are Christians who become terribly anxious at the suggestion that the early Church, in many places, had something of the form of an Asiatic or Hellenistic mystery cult, or that other sects that offered salvation with a savior deity cherished some of the same religious aspirations of Christianity.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Really, though, there is nothing alarming or even surprising in the discovery that the gospel spoke to religious hopes that existed outside its corporate boundaries, or that early Christian devotion should have been expressed in forms not wholly alien to the culture and language of its time.</blockquote>
<br />
On the contrary, we confess that Christ came "in the fullness of time" (Gal. 4:4), so it makes sense that his coming into the world would constitute the fulfillment of certain religious longings of the world which was, after all, created through Him. Longing such as as the desire to see the "face of God", as expressed -- among other places -- in Apuleius' <i>The Golden Ass</i>. Hart notes that these religious expectations are both fulfilled and overturned in Christ. The face of God is revealed, but it's revealed in a scandalous form: that of a crucified Jewish peasant.<br />
<br />
My main interest in the discussion is to affirm that these two apologetic approaches are compatible, rather than mutually exclusive. Provided that the apologist is careful not to blithely dismiss all similarities while accurately articulating the great, significant divergence that does in fact occur with the advent of Christianity.<br />
<br />
<br />
[1] - This article is behind a paywall. Hart has a similar piece from 2011 that is available for free <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-desire-of-the-nations/david-b-hart">here</a>.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-71351282986605424442013-02-09T17:58:00.000-08:002013-02-09T18:07:03.032-08:00Stick-Figure Theology<div>
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3vGibarPUHm047OSaqtWIbfys-f1Ju05lXqAU0Fm0jEEWw_0hpgiDi4hnedqGK9hayz5ldKjNkK2NKwK0VnTN5EaGYWdW9oVo20o3xfkXlqFVYCsixzhMRDOLrfwmRvwEYW42doisJ8w/s1600/StickFigureSalvation.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3vGibarPUHm047OSaqtWIbfys-f1Ju05lXqAU0Fm0jEEWw_0hpgiDi4hnedqGK9hayz5ldKjNkK2NKwK0VnTN5EaGYWdW9oVo20o3xfkXlqFVYCsixzhMRDOLrfwmRvwEYW42doisJ8w/s1600/StickFigureSalvation.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Salvation.</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
DISCLAIMER: I certainly don't hold this to be a sufficient or anywhere-near-exhaustive covering of the topic. For example, an aspect of 'faith' is 'repentance', but for simplicity's sake, 'repentance' is subordinated under the umbrella of 'faith' here. Also, it's shown in distinct windows or phases, while I realize that in reality the process is not so neatly distinct (the first moment you convert you are probably also giving praise, for instance). Also, excuse the somewhat serious-sounding disclaimer attached to some stick-figure drawings. </div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-24779240146033505502013-02-08T05:53:00.000-08:002013-02-08T05:53:16.734-08:00Orthodox Witness in an Un-Orthodox World<i>"[T]hat servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more." - Luke 12:47-48</i><br />
<br />
This passage has many applications for us in life. We can think of it in terms of spiritual gifts, money, power, talent, or health. In all of these respects, the more that you have been given, the more you will be required to offer these things to others, and ultimately back to God as a living sacrifice.<br />
<br />
Another application of this verse that is not typically stressed is with regard to <i>truth</i>. To whom much truth is given, much will be required. Not only required in terms of offering truth itself to others but -- because truth (along with love) is the wellspring of other blessings -- also in terms of offering the many <i>fruits of the truth</i> back to God through others.<br />
<br />
Yikes. If the Orthodox church is the place where God's truth in Christ is revealed in its fullness (as I affirm), then woe unto us who have found Orthodoxy and don't live accordingly! To Orthodox people, much truth has been given; of Orthodox people much will be required. If you're a rotten scoundrel who was blessed to find the Orthodox Church, as I am, this should be somewhat disconcerting. Of course, the grace, beauty, and truth found in the Church is more than enough to compensate for being held to this higher standard. But receiving the riches of Christ through the Church in a way that transforms you does entail cooperating with Him and with Her. And this, of course, is not always easy as it entails taking up our cross daily and following Christ.<br />
<br />
If you're a Christian of any other stripe, and believe that stripe to be the most true stripe, then -- from your perspective -- all of this would still apply to you as well, and it should cause no small amount of consternation. Knowing our master's will, how much worse is it that we don't follow it? Much worse.<br />
<br />
For many of my family, friends, co-workers, and acquaintances, I'm the only Orthodox person that they know personally. Whether it's fair or not and whether they do it consciously or not, people will primarily be judging what Orthodoxy is all about by looking at my life. Much more than how I can answer questions about my faith, or speak intelligently about my reasons for converting (though we are to be prepared to give an answer for the hope that is within us, 1 Peter 3:15), people ultimately look at whether you're walking the walk and whether your life testifies to the transformative truth that you have found. Again, for sinful wretches like myself this is somewhat unhappy news as it means that, not only am I a wretch, but I'll be held to a higher standard before God. Double whammy, as it were.<br />
<br />
In addition to the comfort to be found in Christ's promises and his sanctifying, transfiguring grace (by which I can become less and less of a wretch as I submit to Him and His Church, and therefore become more and more suited to meet the higher standard), another load off is the gift of the divine services. A common refrain in Orthodox circles in response to curious parties is "come and see" (I suspect as a reference to John 1:39, 46). As Fr. Josiah, my spiritual father, says of catechism: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The best catechism is in frequent and watchful attendance at the divine services. This is true because the Church prays what she believes, and believes what she prays. Every service of prayer is deep theology, and all true theology is prayer.</blockquote>
This catechism of the services is not only for catechumens, but for anyone who wants to know what the Orthodox Church is about.<br />
<br />
Other than a holy life (something I don't yet have to offer), the services of the Church are our most potent tool for evangelization. If I can successfully plead with an interlocutor not to judge Orthodoxy by the example that my shabby life puts forth, some pressure is taken off by getting them to attend divine services. At those services there are holy people doing holy things, and worshiping the Holy Trinity in Spirit and Truth. All within the context of the intensely beautiful divine liturgy.<br />
<br />
In an highly un-Orthodox society, it's best to share the burden of witnessing, and put forth the corporate life of the Church as the nonpareil witness to the content and beauty of the Orthodox faith, because it is there that the Body of Christ is revealed in all its splendor. Though ultimately our own individual lives must also be transfigured and become shining, sanctifying microcosms of Christ that testify powerfully to the hope that is within us.<br />
<br />
Through the prayers of our Holy Fathers, Oh Lord Jesus Christ, Our God, have mercy upon us and save us.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-48635250785659203682013-02-06T22:04:00.000-08:002013-02-06T22:04:51.502-08:00"Picking and Choosing" and The BibleIf you follow debates between liberal and conservative evangelicals, you will often see an exchange come down to the conservative accusing the liberal of selectively reading scripture -- of ignoring or downplaying the parts he doesn't like, while accentuating the bits that he does. To which the liberal will often <a href="http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/god-hates-cretans-bible-made-impossible">retort</a> that <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/02/when-the-good-book-is-bad-challenging-the-bibles-violent-portrayals-of-god/#comment-78911">selectivity is unavoidable</a>. That "we <i>all</i> pick and choose." The upshot being that there is no extra-hermeneutical vantage to occupy, and that the meaning of scripture isn't entirely self-disclosing.<br />
<br />
While it's true that our presuppositions and biases will inevitably affect how scripture is understood, and that there is no neutral, assumption-less space from which to view the Bible, it doesn't follow that "we <i>all</i> must pick and choose." This is only the case if you believe that the individual and his conscience is the ultimate authority with regard to the meaning of the text. While this approach is standard within Protestantism, it isn't the only option available to us. Rather than selectively reading the Bible according to our own biases, we can also choose to submit our understanding to the authority of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that Christ founded, and to whom was given the Holy Spirit to guide it "into all truth" (John 16:13).<br />
<br />
What the conservative evangelical often doesn't realize is that he's wisely, but unconsciously, appealing to tradition in these arguments. Though he might deny it, he isn't appealing exclusively to the text itself, but to what he perceives to be the traditional understandings of the text. He (again, wisely) feels there's something unsettling about novel interpretations of scripture and has a visceral reaction against it, but can't really do anything about it if his only recourse is to the Bible itself, since the Bible itself can be twisted and manipulated, as the Bible itself warns. (2 Peter 3:16) And if it can, then who's to say who's doing the twisting and manipulating and who isn't? <br />
<br />
Blessedly, Our Lord Jesus Christ didn't hand down a book to the Apostles that could be interpreted in various contradictory ways, nor did the Apostles hand one down to their followers. What was handed down was the gospel of Christ -- His life and His commandments -- and the Holy Spirit. This was transmitted by oral and written apostolic tradition (2 Thess. 2:15), with the written tradition <i>eventually</i> becoming the New Testament. But just as the New Testament was written, compiled, and canonized by the Church with the seal and guidance of the Holy Spirit, so must the New Testament be read, interpreted, and lived within the Church according to the Holy Spirit. If you adopt the <a href="http://nateduffy.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-church-as-hermeneutic.html">Church <i>as</i> hermeneutic</a>, the question is no longer "what do I think about this passage?", but "what does the Church teach that this passage means?"<br />
<br />
Admittedly, this approach to the question somewhat short-circuits the entire dialogue. If evangelicals did this they wouldn't be evangelicals. Nevertheless, it's critical to point out that not all hermeneutical approaches leave us equally "picking and choosing" from the Bible.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-37169450944959820882013-01-26T11:32:00.000-08:002013-01-26T11:50:49.416-08:00(Evangelical) Doctrine and Historical-Critical ExegesisWithin a tradition committed to the doctrine of <i>sola scripura</i>, some issues arise regarding the source of doctrine, its malleability, and the relationship between doctrine and academic conclusions. What role does academic inquiry and discovery have in informing Christian doctrine? Conversely, does Christian doctrine place limitations on what sorts of academic conclusions are possible or acceptable?<br />
<br />
In a recent <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/01/the-deeper-scandal-of-the-evangelical-mind-we-are-not-allowed-to-use-it/#comment-76277">post titled <i>The Deeper Scandal of the Evangelical Mind: We Are Not Allowed to Use it</i></a>, Peter Enns decries the fact that, within Evangelicalism, "doctrine determines academic conclusions." That frustration is perhaps understandable (given Evangelicalism), but does Enns believe that doctrine should be as fluid as the current archaeological, linguistic, and historical academic consensus on various issues? One suspects he wouldn't fully reverse the formula and declare that "academic conclusions determine doctrine", so what is the correct relationship between the two?<br />
<br />
My sympathies are split on the matter: on the one hand, I think evangelicals are right to be highly suspicious of current trends in academia affecting or altering received doctrine and tradition. If Christ is the source of true doctrine, which he handed down to the Apostles, and which has been faithfully preserved within the life of the Church by the Holy Spirit, then no academic finding or conclusion can possibly affect doctrine. This general disposition of Evangelicals is the proper one.<br />
<br />
The problem is that this general disposition is at odds with what they believe to be the source of doctrine. If "the Bible alone" is the source of doctrine, then doctrine will necessarily be subject to revision as academic discoveries are made regarding the cultural context of the original text, comparative linguistic studies are done, and archaeological discoveries are made. This cautions against making doctrine out of issues that are not inherently doctrinal in nature, but that is only part of the problem. With "the Bible alone", doctrine is already varying according to the many ways people interpret "the Bible alone" (see: the thousands of denominations within Protestantism). And so it isn't clear just which or whose doctrine(s) we're talking about.<br />
<br />
Evangelicals should follow their gut and conclude that doctrine ought not be subject to the whims of academia. They should also follow their gut in endeavoring to hold fast to tradition over and against innovation. But this ultimately means rejecting traditions and doctrines which they have received that were at one point innovations and a departure from the faith once delivered to the saints (and which thus can possibly come into conflict with sound academic research). Such as <i>sola scriptura</i>.<br />
<br />
Historical-critical exegesis of scripture can be a valuable tool for deepening and broadening our knowledge of the scriptures, but the doctrines of the faith are not subject to change, addition, or subtraction. The doctrines of the faith can be articulated more precisely in order to combat heresy, but they don't change as they were given by Christ who is "the same yesterday, today, and forever." (Heb. 13:8).Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-11800181497385079512013-01-21T12:57:00.000-08:002013-01-21T13:04:56.623-08:00Louie Giglio and Preaching to the CultureOn this the day of Obama's 2nd inauguration, Mark Galli has <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/january-web-only/troubled-state-of-christian-preaching.html">a piece in Christianity Today</a> on the Louie Giglio fiasco and its significance for Christians and their engagement with culture. The overall thrust of the piece -- that the Church needs to preach Christ crucified vigorously, and ditch the moralistic therapeutic deism -- is admirable, but Galli makes some crucial mistakes in his diagnosis of the problem. He says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
When the culture takes issue with the church today, it carps about our oppressive sexual ethics (especially our opposition to homosexual behavior) and our various prosperity gospels (from the most egregious health-and-wealth messages to the more subtle but equally dangerous sermons on how faith in Christ can improve your marriage, your business, and your self-esteem).</blockquote>
With regard to the first, I don't get the impression that Galli thinks this is a problem on the Church's end -- let's be charitable and assume he doesn't. Then this is a non-issue: the Church rightly stands up for its sexual ethics in the public square, and the culture rightly (given its values) tears at its garments and wails. This is as it should be. May it ever be so.<br />
<br />
The real mistake is with the latter. The claim that our culture takes issue with self-help, life-management tactics is utterly false. Not only does the wider culture <i>not</i> take issue with this element of American Christianity, but this aberrant strain of the faith is a direct outworking of -- and sustained ally to -- our cultural values and ideology. Thus, when Galli declares:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The current state of our preaching is driven by an admirable desire to show our age the relevance of the gospel. <b>But our recent attempts have inadvertently turned that gospel into mere good advice—about sex, about social ethics, about how to live successfully. This either offends or bores our culture.</b></blockquote>
One wonders which culture he could possibly be referring to. Again, with regard to preaching about sex, sin, and repentance, our culture does rage against us and we should welcome the fury with delight. With regard to preaching practical, self-help therapy, our culture has no issue at all and is in complete sync with the Church on this point.<br />
<br />
Another small complaint about Galli's piece is the introduction, in which he echoes the unfortunately widespread downplaying of Christian persecution in this country -- such as that suffered by Giglio and <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/11/obamacarersquos-crisis-of-conscience">Hobby Lobby</a> -- by noting that other Christians, at other times and places, get killed and tortured for their faith. Expressed in syllogistic form this argument seems to go something like:<br />
<br />
Premise 1: There are many levels of severity of persecution.<br />
Premise 2: ?????<br />
Conclusion: Relatively mild persecution is not persecution at all.<br />
<br />
We are called to live faithfully and to suffer through the persecution that might result. And we should encourage our brothers and sisters who suffer persecution, no matter what form it comes in. This obsessive need to downplay legitimate persecution, just because it's not as bad as it could be, is abhorrent. Murdering Christians for their faith is wicked; chasing Christians from the public square because they refuse to submit to the anti-Christian secular hegemony is also wicked, not to mention anti-American. If we are going to serve as a prophetic witness to the culture, we have to call out persecution for what it is <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/01/shrug-not">rather than shrug it off.</a><br />
<br />
With all that said, Galli is still right about the prosperity gospels, subtle and blatant, which need to be rooted out from the garden of Christianity. What he doesn't seem to get is that, even if this purge were wholly successful, this is much more likely to make Christianity <i>even less</i> attractive to our culture. Thankfully, we're not called to market the faith effectively, but rather to repentance, faithfulness, and holiness.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-133452041856361522013-01-16T17:18:00.000-08:002013-01-16T17:44:18.036-08:00Mystery and Marriage RevisionismI honestly don't have a great interest in issues of Christian feminism and egalitarianism, as my previous entry and this one might suggest. But this seems to be the front from which the left is staging its assault on traditional Christian teaching, and I am a great fan of Christ, His Church, and the traditions they have established and handed down. That being the case, this stuff becomes difficult to avoid.<br />
<br />
Being Orthodox, I suppose you <i>can</i> avoid it by simply resting in the assurance that there is no such thing as a completely novel understanding of any Christian doctrine that is also correct, therefore being assured that egalitarianism is false and anathema, for example. The problem is that there is a nation of Christians being confronted with these challenges to traditionalist Christianity who have no such bulwark. They might really be open to persuasion, which would spiritually harm not only them, but also the broader culture and the Christian witness to the world.<br />
<br />
All that to preface my response to <a href="http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/kristen-rosser-marriage-christ-church">this guest column</a> by Kristen Rosser on Rachel Held Evans' blog, in which Rosser marshals historical-critical exegesis to call into question whether Paul really meant what he said about marriage being "a great mystery" which "concerns Christ and the Church." Or, she would say, whether he means what most claim that he means.<br />
<br />
Let's start at the end where she attempts to allay fears that the motivation for such convoluted interpretations of Scripture is unbiblical conformance to modern culture. No, she assures us, because she and her husband are "best friends" just like they want to be. Are you waiting for the scriptural citation that says that marriage is a kind of sanctified best-friendship-with-benefits? Me too. Not to mention everything the Bible teaches about marriage that belies that denuded, small understanding utterly -- such as the very passage she is interrogating. <br />
<br />
Her chief claim -- that in Ephesians 5:21-32, Paul either isn't using Christ and the Church as an illustration for marriage, or if he is it's not about authority and submission but about giving and sacrifice -- is partly correct, part straw-man, and partly incorrect. Correct is that the relationship of husband to wife and Christ to the Church is not solely -- or even necessarily centrally -- about authority and submission. This is also the straw-man because no complementarians or traditionalists claim that these relationships are <i>solely</i> about that. This being the case, her supposed corrective -- explaining that Christ sacrificially, lovingly, and in all humility gives his life for the Church, thereby coming down to her station and raising her up to glory -- is no corrective at all. No complementarians or marriage traditionalists deny this aspect of Christ's relationship to the Church, or that it is a template for marriage. Her implicit, unstated premise is that this understanding is mutually exclusive with headship, authority, and submission, which of course doesn't follow. Christ <i>both</i> humbly dies for and serves the Church, raising her up to glory <i>and</i> is her head to whom she lovingly submits.<br />
<br />
She expends some energy explaining literary "chiastic sandwiches", which -- even if one accepts as the proper literary framework for the passage -- doesn't really get her any purchase in the argument because, again, the central point -- "That He might present to Himself the church in all her glory" -- is not one that any traditionalist misses, downplays, or denies anyway.<br />
<br />
Part of the problem is Kristen's myopic focus on this single passage. Even setting aside the game of hermeneutical Twister she plays, a simple cross-reference could have saved her from making such errors. Take 1st Corinthians 11:3, for instance, which says that "the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." If Ephesians 5:21-32 wasn't clear enough, this fortifies its obvious, unmistakable meaning (as does the rest of Scripture and Holy Tradition).<br />
<br />
She starts to make a somewhat interesting point, pointing out that Paul uses the word "mystery" to describe the way marriage is a reflection of Christ and the Church. But she immediately goes astray, reducing this great mystery to a one-way illustration that shows marriage being kinda, sorta like Christ and the Church in one specific, narrowly circumscribed way. Whereas the traditional understanding of the great mystery is much more holistic and mutually reinforcing i.e. that Christian marriage images forth Christ and the Church, just as Christ and the Church shows us what marriage is all about. Bizarrely, she points out that "illustration" isn't used in the passage, only to reduce this great mystery to precisely a simple illustration.<br />
<br />
If you compare her understanding of this great mystery to the other great mysteries of the Church, such as Holy Baptism and the Eucharist, it becomes clear that her understanding is much too small, reductionist, and narrow to possibly be correct. As Metropolitan Kallistos Ware says in his book <i>The Orthodox Way</i>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In the proper religious sense of the term, <b>“mystery” signifies not only hiddenness but disclosure.</b> The Greek noun <i>mysterion</i> [from which we get the word 'sacrament'] is linked with the verb myein, meaning “to close the eyes or mouth.” The candidate for initiation into certain of the pagan mystery religions was first blindfolded and led through a maze of passages; then suddenly his eyes were uncovered and he saw, displayed all round him, the secret emblems of the cult. <b>So, in the Christian context, we do not mean by a “mystery” merely that which is baffling and mysterious, an enigma or insoluble problem. A mystery is, on the contrary, something that is revealed for our understanding, but which we never understand exhaustively because it leads into the depth or the darkness of God. The eyes are closed—but they are also opened.</b></blockquote>
This proper understanding of the sacraments of the Church (marriage being one) can't be reconciled with her systematization of the mystery wherein she claims that the mystery is <i>all</i> hiddenness now, and only disclosure in the eschaton.<br />
<br />
Marriage revisionists are right to view passages like this one from Ephesians -- if understood simply, straightforwardly, and in accordance with the rest of the Bible and the traditions of the Church -- as incompatible with their desire to re-imagine marriage. It's amusing to watch them tap-dance around the obvious, but it's also too dangerous to let go by without serious challenge.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.com3