Comments on: What Did Barzun Believe?

By: The death of a true intellectual

The death of a true intellectual — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:47:13 +0000

[...] And yet, he was baptized and sometimes attended both Catholic and Protestant churches. (See this for the question of his religious [...]

By: Drifter

Drifter — Sat, 27 Oct 2012 17:35:20 +0000

He was baptized. He attended church, not only Catholic churches, but Presbyterian congregations and contemporary churches where the pastor walks up and down the aisles. Doesn’t being baptized and going to church count for anything? It certainly would for a European. Being a Christian is about belonging to a supernatural community and is more than just individual piety.

By: Roland

Roland — Sat, 27 Oct 2012 13:53:09 +0000

What did Barzun believe in? The emancipation of the individual. This is an inference I draw from his characterization of the course of western civilization as the ever increasing emancipation of the individual against princes, kings, emperors, bishops and popes, political and scientific ideology, and any other form of tyranny. So while he says he took religion in stride, if without passion, I think he would approve of St. Pauls proclaiming the new life in Christ frees us from our old selves and we are no longer greek nor jew, free men nor slaves, etc. However, Barzun always spoke of good manners as being an important thing–quite traditional and charming. So evidently not all chains are to be unbound.

By: That Was The Week That Was « The Pietist Schoolman

That Was The Week That Was « The Pietist Schoolman — Sat, 27 Oct 2012 13:30:23 +0000

[...] The New Yorker by Barzun’s close friend Arthur Krystal. And Christian readers might check out Matthew Schmitz’s reflection on Barzun‘s seeming disinterest in that religion so closely bound up with the civilization about which [...]

By: Ray Ingles

Ray Ingles — Sat, 27 Oct 2012 13:12:56 +0000

Patrick -

Barzun likely took for granted the inheritances of Christendom, such as the European university system and the scientific method.

As I've pointed out before, alchemy begat chemistry, astrology begat astronomy - but that doesn't mean alchemy and astrology are more likely to be true because of that ancestry, nor that they are necessary now to support chemistry and astronomy.

By: Ray Ingles

Ray Ingles — Sat, 27 Oct 2012 13:03:35 +0000

Patrick –

(And also, New Atheism is a bit “last season” by now, isn’t it?)

C.S. Lewis was sometimes asked if he, a modern, 20th century man, could really believe in the devil. As he wrote in Mere Christianity. “Well, what the time of day has to do with it I do not know.”

If one is actually convinced of something, intellectual or social fashions are irrelevant. So, can you explain what the ‘season’ has to do with it?

By: Bret Lythgoe

Bret Lythgoe — Sat, 27 Oct 2012 06:40:56 +0000

Matthew Anderson: I say this with respect, but you have provided no arguments as to why one cannot be a Theist. Your comments seems to imply that you believe that God is within time and space. He’s not. He created time and space, and is in no way constrained by them. If he wanted to “wait” (I use the word “wait” metaphorically) billions of years before creating humans, who are we finite humans to argue otherwise? God’s mind in not our mind. We will never, as Aquinas has argued, fully understand who God is, or what he thinks. We have a partial picture of reality.

No thinking Christian believes that the Bible is the only word on reality. it’s a partial record, historically. And it contains a plethora of metaphors.

By: Lance Kinzer

Lance Kinzer — Sat, 27 Oct 2012 05:34:28 +0000

Matthew is of course correct to point out the folly of Christians. The wise have correctly diagnosed it in us from the start; to which we must making no argument but to say: “For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.’ Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, ‘Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.’” These are childish words of course, but if by chance they are true they make all the difference. Why some see them as true and others do not is a great mystery and best left to the counsel of God’s will. But one thing is abundantly clear; to see them as true can never be cause to boast. Pray for us now and at the hour of our death.

By: Jason

Jason — Sat, 27 Oct 2012 02:17:00 +0000

I seem to recall in a letter to the editor of First Things the writer arguing that Barzun believed in polytheism – in response to Father Neuhaus’ querry about what Barzun actually thought about religion. This would make sense, since I personally also recall Barzun in a CSPAN interview saying simply that he believed in spirit and just leaving it at that. My sense is that he appreciated the beauty of Christianity throughout the ages but did not see it as true, but that he was open to the very general idea that God might exist and might be working in the world.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 21:48:26 +0000

Barzun likely took for granted the inheritances of Christendom, such as the European university system and the scientific method. As he said, the Church was simply there, and he does not seem to have given a great deal of thought as to understand how things might have been different were the Church not there.

To those commenters suggesting that the Bible represents myth or fable: I don’t think you really understand the difference between the God of Israel and the gods of, say, ancient Greece or pagan Europe. They really are two qualitatively different types, which is a point made repeatedly through the Old Testament and even more forcefully in the person of God Incarnate in the New Testament.

And this is not simply an article of faith, but a historical fact well-understand among the better educated. If you read for example the very interesting book “Before Philosophy: The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man” (published by the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago, not by a church) you will note that the editor makes a point to distinguish the Hebrew God, transcendent of the world, being itself rather than a being, totally from any other god, and places this distinction on par with Greek philosophy as a world-historical intellectual achievement.

Now, having studied Christian theology, you might still find the account of that God to be unconvincing. But to lump the Bible in with Zeus and Poseiden is to misunderstand both the nature of mythology and of Christianity, and to make it difficult for people who are able to make relevant distinctions to take you seriously. (And also, New Atheism is a bit “last season” by now, isn’t it?)