Orthodoxy and Silence in the Public Square
Apr 17, 2012
Elizabeth Scalia
Chesterton famously wrote, “There never was anything so perilous or so exciting as orthodoxy.”
With the furor arising from some corners upon the release of his new book, Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics, Ross Douthat might be inclined to add to the big man’s dictum, “or anything so willfully misunderstood and resisted.”
Douthat's book is a neatly laid-out dissertation on the people of faith and their place in American society. It is a deft chronicle of where faith communities went right—spanning a heyday of religious commentary and social activism, from John Courtney Murray to Martin Luther King—where they gravely misstepped (through over-accommodation, self-defeating scriptural scholarship, and the inevitable discovery of “the God Within”) and where, through the embrasure of so-called “prosperity gospels” catering to the worst instincts of a post-binge capitalist society, they have simply gone mad.
Douthat also lays a humbly offered groundwork for how and where the churches may yet recover their sense of both social place and mission. Not surprisingly, it will involve a confrontation with the self that will be as painful as any bacchanal’s bleary-eyed gaze into a well-lit morning mirror; groaning pleas for mercy will make a slow, careful nod toward justice.
Nowhere in Douthat’s book, or in his recent feature piece in the New York Times, which was minimally adapted from the book, is there served up a feed so spicy that it should cause a case of dyspeptic outrage, but some reactions might give that impression. “This is hellfire and brimstone delivered in New York Times-speak”, writes blogger Marie Burns, who accuses Douthat of longing “[for the days] when American newspapers routinely published the sermons of popular preachers.”
Having occasion to speak with Douthat, I asked whether he was, in fact, a modern hybrid of Billy Sunday and Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, looking to fill the secular media with religion. “Fire and brimstone only in the sense that I am a Christian and believe in heaven and hell,” he laughed, “but in fact, I’m not sure it would be the worst thing in the world for papers to run a few sermons; I don’t think it’s a threat to anyone’s faith, or lack of faith, to hear religious voices in the public square—that’s part of what religious liberty is all about.”
The notion that a faith perspective is as worthy to inhabit a public barking stall as any other is hardly a novel idea—until very recently, freedom of religion was understood to mean not only the freedom to worship but to practice and profess one’s religion openly, and to admit the role religion has played in the formation of one’s ideas. Douthat makes a credible argument that such is still the case; he notes that few secularists take issue with the publicly shared “spiritual but not religious” doctrines of Elizabeth Gilbert, Deepak Chopra, and Eckhard Tolle and argues that, “Elizabeth Gilbert, for instance, is offering up a serious theology and should be engaged with, seriously and publicly.” Dueling podiums could be a very healthy and enlightening thing for a society in the throes of material failure, but those taking traditional, orthodox views, be they Christian or otherwise, are being discouraged from speech, rather than invited in.
Douthat does an excellent job in tracking how faith communities have contributed to this unwelcome through the self-immolation of their own moral credibility:
Therapeutic theology is hardly uniquely responsible for these trends. Our appetites have increased in proportion to our unprecedented wealth, and our immediate-gratification culture has been made possible by material abundance and technological progress . . . the Tolles and Winfreys and Chopras [are] telling an affluent, appetitive society exactly what it wants to hear: that all of his deepest desires are really God’s desires, and that he wouldn’t dream of judging.
Against a message like that, some would say an orthodox reply would not stand a chance, but Douthat disagrees, particularly as regards Christianity, which is still the dominant religious force in America:
Like W.H. Auden wandering amid the shuttered churches of 1930’s Spain, perhaps Americans will survey the wreckage all around them and turn once again to a more rigorous and humble form of Christian faith. Perhaps the experience of a financial meltdown will help vindicate orthodox Christianity’s critique of avarice and greed. Perhaps the lived reality of family breakdown and social isolation will make Christianity’s emphasis on chastity, monogamy, and fidelity more compelling. Perhaps the spectacle of polarization and gridlock will inspire greater realism about the ability of politics to serve God’s purposes, and put an end to the persistent conflation of partisan and religious loyalties.
Perhaps. Then again, as Douthat himself notes, “Sometimes cultural crises lead to reassessments and renewals. But sometimes they just make people double down on their original mistakes.”
True enough. And if the public square becomes off-limits to the opinions and ideas of those formed in faith, many may not even know there is another option.
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here.
RESOURCES
Ross Douthat, Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics
Ross Douthat's Feature
Marie Burns
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
4.17.2012 | 3:56am
Michael PS says:
Perhaps, Christians would do well to ponder Henri de Lubac's words, "the church is not instrumental to God’s purpose of redeeming the world, rather the world is instrumental to God’s purpose of fashioning a body and bride for his Son."
4.17.2012 | 8:15am
ferd says:
Sounds like a worthwhile read. Thanks for the review.
A while back Mr. Douthat did a fine article on how the recurring religious theme of Hollywood is pantheism. Here he has written about how Christianity in America is missing the mark. I wonder if he has noticed how many Christians are going Gaia for ecology?
A while back Mr. Douthat did a fine article on how the recurring religious theme of Hollywood is pantheism. Here he has written about how Christianity in America is missing the mark. I wonder if he has noticed how many Christians are going Gaia for ecology?
4.17.2012 | 9:02am
Joe DeVet says:
America, it is said, is statistically one of the most religious countries in the world.
However, people tend more and more to worship a God of their own design, as opposed to the God Who Is. I consult first my own heart in seeing this as a fatal tendency.
When God is made in my image and likeness, anything is possible.
How else to explain a Culture of Death which embraces religious belief?
However, people tend more and more to worship a God of their own design, as opposed to the God Who Is. I consult first my own heart in seeing this as a fatal tendency.
When God is made in my image and likeness, anything is possible.
How else to explain a Culture of Death which embraces religious belief?
4.17.2012 | 10:47am
"Perhaps the experience of a financial meltdown will help vindicate orthodox Christianity’s critique of avarice and greed."
It is a heartening development to see a sentence like this on the FIRST THINGS website. Greed is the primary sin of our society, resulting in elaborate systems of lies, theft, and murder of various sorts that have only grown more brazen over the last decade.
Lust, while not unimportant, is distinctly secondary. Indeed, to a substantial degree, our society's preoccupation can itself be shown to be merely an outgrowth of its preoccupation with greed. A prime example of this connection is the widespread appeal to the sexual urge in advertising.
It is a heartening development to see a sentence like this on the FIRST THINGS website. Greed is the primary sin of our society, resulting in elaborate systems of lies, theft, and murder of various sorts that have only grown more brazen over the last decade.
Lust, while not unimportant, is distinctly secondary. Indeed, to a substantial degree, our society's preoccupation can itself be shown to be merely an outgrowth of its preoccupation with greed. A prime example of this connection is the widespread appeal to the sexual urge in advertising.
4.17.2012 | 2:07pm
Tony Esolen says:
Soulless lust and soulless greed are like Siamese twins. They do spring from the same principle, that one is what one has, or what one has power over, and not what one gives away in love. The difference is in what arouses. It's almost pointless to ask which is the more destructive. Typhus is more dangerous than pneumonia, perhaps, but if you leave them untreated they'll both kill you, and somebody dead of typhus is just as dead as somebody dead of pneumonia.
4.17.2012 | 3:19pm
David Severy says:
We are hearing a lot about religion and little about faith.
John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
4.17.2012 | 4:30pm
Gil says:
I like that Tony Esolen: "Soulless lust and soulless greed are like Siamese twins."
I agree. Adam and Eve were via Creation one flesh and assigned caretakers over God's Creation. Satan convinced them that if they took possession of the knowledge of good and evil, they would be as gods, and thus possess ultimate power. This singular act of taking possession, the expropriation of God’s moral authority in our now willing the good on our own terms (what Nietzsche advocated), which God now in relation to us in our rebellion constitutes an awareness of the dynamics of His power (Law) until the Law is fulfilled in the restoration of Love, is the birth of the possessive ontology, and it is followed with the awakened awareness that they as creatures are no longer one, but separate entities to be possessed, the birth of lust. And when they looked around, their eyes trapped in the possessive ontology, they realized that Creation in its entirety was something to be possessed, and thus self-referenced at all times (birth of idolatry, for even in them creating nature gods it was a means of empowering themselves with the projection of their desire to overcome their fears of hostile forces that impeded their all-consuming desire to expropriate God’s Creation), and that new dominating acquisitive instinct had a name: Greed. But one must not lose sight of the fact that Adam and Eve were the peak of Creation, that in a deep sense all of Creation is summed up in their lives, and therefore, the ultimate expression of the acquisitive instinct was lust, to destroy the union with the other in a preference to possess him/her as an object of lust, the first and most damaging aspect of the Fall, something that revealed their weakness, their inability to ever achieve union on their own, a union that cannot be possessed, and they had to hide from this weakness, for it would burst the bubble that sustains their illusion of power: they must hide from this awareness for it is an awareness that what they had had in union was far greater than all they can now possess, and this hiding is represented by the sewn fig leaves. Now all attempts at restoring union are imprisoned in the inescapable dynamics of power over the other, which necessitates only one way available: absolute possession; and it follows that the ultimately expressed possession (the peak of union in the possessive ontology) of the other is to destroy him/her, for then no one else can claim possession, not even the other him/herself, and precisely why the culture of Satan is a culture of death. To grasp this in all its simplicity, just think of the woman who is raped saying convincingly, “I would rather he had killed me.” For then she would not have been aware that the assailant wanted her to know he had taken full possession of her in his lust (unioned with her), and that she will never be freed from that power he exerted over her in taking possession of her, trapped as she will ever be in the trauma, however deep she buries it in the unconscious.
This is why the sexual revolution in my mind is the most serious and most devastating rebellion in the history of the world: it is the ultimate expression of the possessive ontology, the ultimate expression of our rebellion against God, and no doubt why the Church honors its negation in the institution of marriage (proclaimed by Christ himself), the “domestic church”. For it is in the dynamics of this domestic church that we as Christian men and women not only are gifted with restoration, but also we best learn in general the dynamics of love and sacrifice at the deepest and most intricate and highly complex level, which mirrors the life of Our Lord.
I agree. Adam and Eve were via Creation one flesh and assigned caretakers over God's Creation. Satan convinced them that if they took possession of the knowledge of good and evil, they would be as gods, and thus possess ultimate power. This singular act of taking possession, the expropriation of God’s moral authority in our now willing the good on our own terms (what Nietzsche advocated), which God now in relation to us in our rebellion constitutes an awareness of the dynamics of His power (Law) until the Law is fulfilled in the restoration of Love, is the birth of the possessive ontology, and it is followed with the awakened awareness that they as creatures are no longer one, but separate entities to be possessed, the birth of lust. And when they looked around, their eyes trapped in the possessive ontology, they realized that Creation in its entirety was something to be possessed, and thus self-referenced at all times (birth of idolatry, for even in them creating nature gods it was a means of empowering themselves with the projection of their desire to overcome their fears of hostile forces that impeded their all-consuming desire to expropriate God’s Creation), and that new dominating acquisitive instinct had a name: Greed. But one must not lose sight of the fact that Adam and Eve were the peak of Creation, that in a deep sense all of Creation is summed up in their lives, and therefore, the ultimate expression of the acquisitive instinct was lust, to destroy the union with the other in a preference to possess him/her as an object of lust, the first and most damaging aspect of the Fall, something that revealed their weakness, their inability to ever achieve union on their own, a union that cannot be possessed, and they had to hide from this weakness, for it would burst the bubble that sustains their illusion of power: they must hide from this awareness for it is an awareness that what they had had in union was far greater than all they can now possess, and this hiding is represented by the sewn fig leaves. Now all attempts at restoring union are imprisoned in the inescapable dynamics of power over the other, which necessitates only one way available: absolute possession; and it follows that the ultimately expressed possession (the peak of union in the possessive ontology) of the other is to destroy him/her, for then no one else can claim possession, not even the other him/herself, and precisely why the culture of Satan is a culture of death. To grasp this in all its simplicity, just think of the woman who is raped saying convincingly, “I would rather he had killed me.” For then she would not have been aware that the assailant wanted her to know he had taken full possession of her in his lust (unioned with her), and that she will never be freed from that power he exerted over her in taking possession of her, trapped as she will ever be in the trauma, however deep she buries it in the unconscious.
This is why the sexual revolution in my mind is the most serious and most devastating rebellion in the history of the world: it is the ultimate expression of the possessive ontology, the ultimate expression of our rebellion against God, and no doubt why the Church honors its negation in the institution of marriage (proclaimed by Christ himself), the “domestic church”. For it is in the dynamics of this domestic church that we as Christian men and women not only are gifted with restoration, but also we best learn in general the dynamics of love and sacrifice at the deepest and most intricate and highly complex level, which mirrors the life of Our Lord.
4.17.2012 | 7:19pm
Sergio Méndez says:
"This is why the sexual revolution in my mind is the most serious and most devastating rebellion in the history of the world: it is the ultimate expression of the possessive ontology, the ultimate expression of our rebellion against God"
More than...say...slavery, imperialism, holocaust or totalitarism? If your God thinos sucj things are less "rebelious" than the idea that people (especially women) can live their sexual life acording to their own will, that is another reason to reject him (even if he exists).
More than...say...slavery, imperialism, holocaust or totalitarism? If your God thinos sucj things are less "rebelious" than the idea that people (especially women) can live their sexual life acording to their own will, that is another reason to reject him (even if he exists).
4.17.2012 | 7:43pm
ferd says:
Gil, this is an interesting meditation you've presented here on how (our nation of heretics) humanity has gone astray...i.e...via greed and lust. Could you please elaborate on how "Adam and Eve were the peak of creation"...?
I've always thought Christ huimbled Himself, taking the lowest place.
I've always thought Christ huimbled Himself, taking the lowest place.
4.17.2012 | 8:55pm
Cylea says:
Sergio,
Without for one moment diminishing the wickedness that slavery, imperialism, holocaust or totalitarianism represent, I believe the answer to your question remains "yes." Wiser people than me will surely come up with better points to make, but the following distinction comes to mind.
What the "sexual revolution" represents is a "me first" approach to life. Its goal is MY comfort, MY gratification, MY pleasure, MY convenience. This attempt to elevate the self and self-interest over the LORD is a fundamental rejection of who and what God represents Himself to the world as being. Contrast that with the sins you mentioned. All of them are means to an end. Evil means to be sure, but a misguided person could in theory attempt to use them in order to pursue a good end. The infamous "white man's burden" comes to mind.
Make no mistake, I don't intend to say that evil means to a good end are defensible. To the contrary, I firmly believe that such an approach pollutes the good goal and renders the entire exercise wicked. But I think Gil was right to say that sinful means to pursue a sinful end are even worse.
Without for one moment diminishing the wickedness that slavery, imperialism, holocaust or totalitarianism represent, I believe the answer to your question remains "yes." Wiser people than me will surely come up with better points to make, but the following distinction comes to mind.
What the "sexual revolution" represents is a "me first" approach to life. Its goal is MY comfort, MY gratification, MY pleasure, MY convenience. This attempt to elevate the self and self-interest over the LORD is a fundamental rejection of who and what God represents Himself to the world as being. Contrast that with the sins you mentioned. All of them are means to an end. Evil means to be sure, but a misguided person could in theory attempt to use them in order to pursue a good end. The infamous "white man's burden" comes to mind.
Make no mistake, I don't intend to say that evil means to a good end are defensible. To the contrary, I firmly believe that such an approach pollutes the good goal and renders the entire exercise wicked. But I think Gil was right to say that sinful means to pursue a sinful end are even worse.
4.18.2012 | 1:01am
bblackhawk says:
@sergio Mendez: slavery, imperialism, holocaust, and totalitarianism are all ancient and well-worn manifestations of the culture of death, although the 20th century showed us how new twists are always being put on these monstrous impulses.
The sexual revolution however, which (most will avoid saying) is centered and enabled first and foremost by contraception, is truly a new and different kind of rebellion against God. I could not possibly be as articulate as Gil, but here's what I see: if living your sexual life "according to your own will" means purposely destroying your procreative powers and encouraging (even requiring?) others to do the same, than you have brought rebellion to the very root of your being as an embodied person.
And for what? Freedom to lust?
The sexual revolution however, which (most will avoid saying) is centered and enabled first and foremost by contraception, is truly a new and different kind of rebellion against God. I could not possibly be as articulate as Gil, but here's what I see: if living your sexual life "according to your own will" means purposely destroying your procreative powers and encouraging (even requiring?) others to do the same, than you have brought rebellion to the very root of your being as an embodied person.
And for what? Freedom to lust?
4.18.2012 | 3:08am
Gian says:
Cylea,
Isn't the sexual revolution an inevitable development of the glorification of the pursuit of self-interest?
Isn't the sexual revolution an inevitable development of the glorification of the pursuit of self-interest?
4.18.2012 | 3:08am
Gian says:
Cylea,
Isn't the sexual revolution an inevitable development of the glorification of the pursuit of self-interest?
Isn't the sexual revolution an inevitable development of the glorification of the pursuit of self-interest?
4.18.2012 | 9:43am
Joseph Marshall says:
If I disagree sharply with you, and you disagree sharply with me, this is the persecution of neither one of us. Orthodox Christians are no way being "discouraged from speech" by merely being disagreed with. Anything else is either fantasy or mendacity. If this were not so, a venue like this would not exist, along with thousands of other such venues. You already have "dueling podiums", you merely aren't conversant with what such a thing really means. It includes Bronx cheers as well as "elevated discourse" that "contributes to the discussion".
For freedom's sake, then, I'll make an observation about how my own Buddhist religion has served in the formation of my ideas. A Buddhist teacher has very cogently remarked that we should maintain a "pure outlook" towards other beings, but not toward their opinions.
If an idea like this discourages you from speaking, then you discourage far easier than I do.
For freedom's sake, then, I'll make an observation about how my own Buddhist religion has served in the formation of my ideas. A Buddhist teacher has very cogently remarked that we should maintain a "pure outlook" towards other beings, but not toward their opinions.
If an idea like this discourages you from speaking, then you discourage far easier than I do.
4.18.2012 | 11:25am
Michael DePietro says:
What to make of this sentence " Perhaps the spectacle of polarization and gridlock will inspire greater realism about the ability of politics to serve God’s purposes, and put an end to the persistent conflation of partisan and religious loyalties."
There is no "confusion" about partisan and religious loyalties! Things are really quite simple over the last several years the Democrats have become agressively secular and wholly committed to abortion on demand. Abortion is described by Vatican II is an "unspeakable crime" and is decribed by Blessed John Paul II as "murder" in Evangelium Vitae. To quote he states "The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder". It should not take great intellect to understand if one political party agressively and wholeheartedly supports something which is "murder" and "unspeakable crime", and does so on an industrial scale, that political party is now immoral to support. This is true on any political party that has taken a position that as a matter of principle defends policies that are not just wise but grave violations of the natural law. So the Communist party or the Nazi party were and would be immoral to support because they advocated as a matter of principal things which violated the natural law. During the Time of slavery it was wrong to support a party that advocated slavery. Now in our time it is wrong to support a party that defends murder and unspeakable crime.
It is beyond me why this is at all difficult to understand. While the Republicans are imperfect they do not as a matter of party policy advocate for abortion and in fact while not enough Republicans are 100% pro-life, on balance the pro-life movement does better with Republicans. To support the Democrats is the equivalent to supporting NARAL or Planned Parenthood.
In that kind of situation, then indeed partisan politics must be conflated with ones religious beliefs because it is ridiculous to call oneself a Christian and not oppose unspeakable crime and legalized murder with full force.
There is no "confusion" about partisan and religious loyalties! Things are really quite simple over the last several years the Democrats have become agressively secular and wholly committed to abortion on demand. Abortion is described by Vatican II is an "unspeakable crime" and is decribed by Blessed John Paul II as "murder" in Evangelium Vitae. To quote he states "The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder". It should not take great intellect to understand if one political party agressively and wholeheartedly supports something which is "murder" and "unspeakable crime", and does so on an industrial scale, that political party is now immoral to support. This is true on any political party that has taken a position that as a matter of principle defends policies that are not just wise but grave violations of the natural law. So the Communist party or the Nazi party were and would be immoral to support because they advocated as a matter of principal things which violated the natural law. During the Time of slavery it was wrong to support a party that advocated slavery. Now in our time it is wrong to support a party that defends murder and unspeakable crime.
It is beyond me why this is at all difficult to understand. While the Republicans are imperfect they do not as a matter of party policy advocate for abortion and in fact while not enough Republicans are 100% pro-life, on balance the pro-life movement does better with Republicans. To support the Democrats is the equivalent to supporting NARAL or Planned Parenthood.
In that kind of situation, then indeed partisan politics must be conflated with ones religious beliefs because it is ridiculous to call oneself a Christian and not oppose unspeakable crime and legalized murder with full force.
4.18.2012 | 12:33pm
Rhinestone Suderman says:
Unfortunately, Joseph, given the government's attempts to impose things such as the HHS mandate (which would force Catholic institutions to go against Chruch teachings), and forcing insurers to pay for birth control, sterilizations, abortions, etc., the conflict appears to be moving away from disagreeing sharply, to outright coercion; no, it's not being applied harshly---not now, not at first; it never is, in the beginning.
Before the concentration camps really got going in Germany, Jews, the disabled and other "Untermenchen" were hemmed in by a network of laws, regulations and punitive fines.
The fact that Christian blogs are allowed to exist (for the moment) isn't necessarily evidence of the good intentions of the powers that be. (They still haven't seized control of the internet, at least not yet.)
And, of course, there's no denying that Christians in other countries are being persecuted, and that in some places, like North Korea and the Middle-East, religious/ethnic cleansing of Christians is happening.
Before the concentration camps really got going in Germany, Jews, the disabled and other "Untermenchen" were hemmed in by a network of laws, regulations and punitive fines.
The fact that Christian blogs are allowed to exist (for the moment) isn't necessarily evidence of the good intentions of the powers that be. (They still haven't seized control of the internet, at least not yet.)
And, of course, there's no denying that Christians in other countries are being persecuted, and that in some places, like North Korea and the Middle-East, religious/ethnic cleansing of Christians is happening.
4.18.2012 | 2:38pm
Gil says:
Sergio Mendez,
"More than...say...slavery, imperialism, holocaust or totalitarism?"
If you journey to the heart of darkness, to the depths of what is at the ground of all forms of the possessive ontology, you will find in those depths the split between man and woman, the birth of all forms of possessing, dominating, torturing and murdering the other or others (Adam and Eve under the curse of separation raise Cain, and that curse is undone only with the restoration of the unity of man and woman as complementary others, one flesh: there ironically exists the case where some Christian men believe the curse is the way of the Lord!, and from that curse it becomes easy for them to become slave owners and Nazis; the ground is set for it). The implication of what I wrote is this: until we as Christians focus first on the devastation of man and woman being ripped asunder and focus on what God has provided to restore their unity, man and woman will remain trapped in the possessive ontology, and every other will in some fashion be an object to possess and ultimately destroyed, if not obviously so, at least in spirit, which essentially kills the flesh, too, makes it non-functioning at the level of joy in living. The restoration of a viable culture (where a legitimate progression would still exist) begins with children growing up in a home where a man and woman have been restored to being whole in their complementary union. Man and woman must be distinguished to see the necessity for their union (what sex liberationists continually deny), not separated, although as persons they do exist independently before God and each other. What we have lost is the realization that a man does not become wholly man except in his love and union with a woman, and vice versa with woman, and even celibate priests who choose to deepen their relationship with God will most often engage in spiritual nuptuality in a relationship with Mary their mother. Remember that Jesus’ relationship to his mother also had its nuptial dimension.
I recommend you read what I am convinced is the greatest novel of the 20th century, Franz Kafka's "The Trial". This nightmare he portrays is in my view the best exploration of what the Fall had wrought, and how man attempts to replicate the dynamics of law, to be god at that highest level separate from God (for in the life of God we live in love, not power which is always regulated by law, and why the dynamics of law itself before being fulfilled in Love was ultimately a curse). But what for me is most significant is that the hero, Joseph K., in battling the curse and infinite confusion, absurdity and futility of law, is always sidetracked in his flirtatious behavior. For example, with Leni when he is at the lawyer's apartment and the chief clerk of the court is present, K.'s best opportunity to make some headway, and off he goes to engage Leni sexually, missing his opportunity. For me Kafka in this novel repeatedly shows how man's desire for union with woman and woman’s desire for union with man is the deepest desire we have (and if left unfulfilled makes impossible any other corrective in the world of chaos); as I expressed above, the possessive ontology that is always rooted in power prevents the union of man and woman, essentially opposes it at every turn no matter how great the effort. The restoration of man and woman cannot occur in power, but only in Love (beyond romantic love, the love that both Old and New Testaments reveal, but what romantic love nonetheless points to).
My argument is that if we bring all the forces of justice to bear on all the problems you allude to, including genocide, if we do not go to the heart of the matter, to how man and woman were torn asunder in the possessive ontology that must reside in power, we will not have gone to the root disaster. In other words, there will be no substantial foundation for any culture without the nuclear family construct, legitimized and sanctioned culturally with the institution of marriage.
"More than...say...slavery, imperialism, holocaust or totalitarism?"
If you journey to the heart of darkness, to the depths of what is at the ground of all forms of the possessive ontology, you will find in those depths the split between man and woman, the birth of all forms of possessing, dominating, torturing and murdering the other or others (Adam and Eve under the curse of separation raise Cain, and that curse is undone only with the restoration of the unity of man and woman as complementary others, one flesh: there ironically exists the case where some Christian men believe the curse is the way of the Lord!, and from that curse it becomes easy for them to become slave owners and Nazis; the ground is set for it). The implication of what I wrote is this: until we as Christians focus first on the devastation of man and woman being ripped asunder and focus on what God has provided to restore their unity, man and woman will remain trapped in the possessive ontology, and every other will in some fashion be an object to possess and ultimately destroyed, if not obviously so, at least in spirit, which essentially kills the flesh, too, makes it non-functioning at the level of joy in living. The restoration of a viable culture (where a legitimate progression would still exist) begins with children growing up in a home where a man and woman have been restored to being whole in their complementary union. Man and woman must be distinguished to see the necessity for their union (what sex liberationists continually deny), not separated, although as persons they do exist independently before God and each other. What we have lost is the realization that a man does not become wholly man except in his love and union with a woman, and vice versa with woman, and even celibate priests who choose to deepen their relationship with God will most often engage in spiritual nuptuality in a relationship with Mary their mother. Remember that Jesus’ relationship to his mother also had its nuptial dimension.
I recommend you read what I am convinced is the greatest novel of the 20th century, Franz Kafka's "The Trial". This nightmare he portrays is in my view the best exploration of what the Fall had wrought, and how man attempts to replicate the dynamics of law, to be god at that highest level separate from God (for in the life of God we live in love, not power which is always regulated by law, and why the dynamics of law itself before being fulfilled in Love was ultimately a curse). But what for me is most significant is that the hero, Joseph K., in battling the curse and infinite confusion, absurdity and futility of law, is always sidetracked in his flirtatious behavior. For example, with Leni when he is at the lawyer's apartment and the chief clerk of the court is present, K.'s best opportunity to make some headway, and off he goes to engage Leni sexually, missing his opportunity. For me Kafka in this novel repeatedly shows how man's desire for union with woman and woman’s desire for union with man is the deepest desire we have (and if left unfulfilled makes impossible any other corrective in the world of chaos); as I expressed above, the possessive ontology that is always rooted in power prevents the union of man and woman, essentially opposes it at every turn no matter how great the effort. The restoration of man and woman cannot occur in power, but only in Love (beyond romantic love, the love that both Old and New Testaments reveal, but what romantic love nonetheless points to).
My argument is that if we bring all the forces of justice to bear on all the problems you allude to, including genocide, if we do not go to the heart of the matter, to how man and woman were torn asunder in the possessive ontology that must reside in power, we will not have gone to the root disaster. In other words, there will be no substantial foundation for any culture without the nuclear family construct, legitimized and sanctioned culturally with the institution of marriage.
4.18.2012 | 2:57pm
Gil says:
ferd,
" Could you please elaborate on how 'Adam and Eve were the peak of creation'...?
I've always thought Christ humbled Himself, taking the lowest place."
The Church has always taught that Adam and Eve are the peak of Creation. Just ask yourself, why did God create the world? He has made it absolutely clear in Christ that he wanted to make us his adoptive children (us prodigal children), to be gods in Christ, not on our own initiative, the latter the origin of all our ills, including death. When the earth was formed, God took the dirt of it and did something he did not do with the rest of creation, not in plant life or animals: he breathed into us, forming us in his image and likeness (what was certainly the dawn of human consciousness where we were able to think about our thoughts and listen to our conscience). In that act, breathing into us, we became the peak of creation. Yes we were made from the earth (evolution), but we also, in union with the earth, transcend it. This is why we, as opposed to Gnostics, are incarnational, affirming that the soul is one with the earth that will be transfigured at the end of time. Jesus remaining physical in his transfigured state affirms this.
All of Creation groans toward the Omega Point where the final transfiguration will occur. For what purpose? So that we will eternally be the children of God where we will sit in judgment of the angels, what Lucifer, the greatest angel, apparently could not tolerate.
Because we from the beginning clung to the possessive ontology (sinning in Adam) and power became the driving force in all that we would do to create the good life on our own terms separate from God, God decided that his Son would arrive to save us by becoming one with us NOT in power, not in the possessive ontology, but in a radical emptying, not possessing anything, just listening to what the Holy Spirit told him in guiding him towards the Cross and our redemption, becoming the weakest of the weak, the absolute negation of all power that would reveal behind that veil of power-as-the-way an infinite Love.
We are in the 8th day of Creation, the day of Love, if we choose to accept it. But it will require one thing: an emptying of power while remaining open to the love that will be poured into our souls, and from there we will go out into the world with a new energy source, not one of opposition, hatred and control, but of receiving and being received.
" Could you please elaborate on how 'Adam and Eve were the peak of creation'...?
I've always thought Christ humbled Himself, taking the lowest place."
The Church has always taught that Adam and Eve are the peak of Creation. Just ask yourself, why did God create the world? He has made it absolutely clear in Christ that he wanted to make us his adoptive children (us prodigal children), to be gods in Christ, not on our own initiative, the latter the origin of all our ills, including death. When the earth was formed, God took the dirt of it and did something he did not do with the rest of creation, not in plant life or animals: he breathed into us, forming us in his image and likeness (what was certainly the dawn of human consciousness where we were able to think about our thoughts and listen to our conscience). In that act, breathing into us, we became the peak of creation. Yes we were made from the earth (evolution), but we also, in union with the earth, transcend it. This is why we, as opposed to Gnostics, are incarnational, affirming that the soul is one with the earth that will be transfigured at the end of time. Jesus remaining physical in his transfigured state affirms this.
All of Creation groans toward the Omega Point where the final transfiguration will occur. For what purpose? So that we will eternally be the children of God where we will sit in judgment of the angels, what Lucifer, the greatest angel, apparently could not tolerate.
Because we from the beginning clung to the possessive ontology (sinning in Adam) and power became the driving force in all that we would do to create the good life on our own terms separate from God, God decided that his Son would arrive to save us by becoming one with us NOT in power, not in the possessive ontology, but in a radical emptying, not possessing anything, just listening to what the Holy Spirit told him in guiding him towards the Cross and our redemption, becoming the weakest of the weak, the absolute negation of all power that would reveal behind that veil of power-as-the-way an infinite Love.
We are in the 8th day of Creation, the day of Love, if we choose to accept it. But it will require one thing: an emptying of power while remaining open to the love that will be poured into our souls, and from there we will go out into the world with a new energy source, not one of opposition, hatred and control, but of receiving and being received.
4.18.2012 | 4:19pm
Dee says:
Gil -- Christ is a divine being, the only begotten son of the Father, consubstantial with the Father, but having two natures (divine and human) -- he is not a created being.
4.18.2012 | 5:00pm
ferd says:
Gil, thanks for the response. My view of Creation is somewhat different. I agree that Christ Jesus "radically empties" Himself (your fine words)...but does so by passing through layers of potential beings--some obedient and others not. Thus, Jesus brings into being all limited things. Picture an upside down triangle or funnel of creation leading toward the perfect Act of eternal mercy--the Man/God of Life bruised by death.
The inverted triangle of powerful angels to less powerful spirits toward semi-spirit/semi-material beings (Man) places us at the bottom of creation, not the pinnacle. Mankind is at THE vanishing point of potentially free beings. Now, if your point is to say that through Christ, "the last will become first", then yes we will be (in Jesus) a peak of creation.
The inverted triangle of powerful angels to less powerful spirits toward semi-spirit/semi-material beings (Man) places us at the bottom of creation, not the pinnacle. Mankind is at THE vanishing point of potentially free beings. Now, if your point is to say that through Christ, "the last will become first", then yes we will be (in Jesus) a peak of creation.
4.18.2012 | 5:42pm
Eleni Rigual says:
Gil, your comment about us becoming "gods in Christ" does not square with Scripture. Your position sounds more like Mormonism NOT biblical, orthodox Christianity. Yes, man was created in the image of God. Adam and Eve failed to obey God which resulted in the Fall when sin and death entered the human race through Adam. Christ, who is very God of very God, was born of a virgin by the Holy Spirit and became man. He came into the world to redeem us from the curse of sin and reconcile us to God by his sacrificial death on the Cross. He died and was buried and rose again on the Third Day. He ascended into Heaven where He is seated at the right of the Father and He shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. Your commentary makes it all about us and all about love. It's neither and it's certainly not about us becoming "gods." It was never about us but has always been about God's glory. We were created for His glory and to know Him, the only True God. See John 17:3. Yes, one of God's attributes is love but He is also Just and Holy. It's about God's justice being satisfied in and through Christ who bore God's wrath for our sin. It's about a Holy God, loving us enough to save us by sending His only begotten Son into the world that whosoever believes in Him shall have everlasting life. See John 3:16. Jesus Christ said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father but by Me." John 14:6. As one previous poster mentioned, it's not about religion it's about faith, saving faith in Jesus Christ. "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12
4.18.2012 | 6:52pm
Joseph Marshall says:
Rhinestone, nobody gets a free pass in this country, not Planned Parenthood, not the Catholic Church, not AFSCME, not Buddhists. Every so often you have to take up the mantle of political controversy, the path of referendum on law or office holder, or resort to courts to strike down illegitimate policy or law. Sooner or later everybody has to do it.
I have a long enough memory to know that it's a whole lot more civilized than it used to be: no lynchings, no tar and featherings, no fistfights in the streets, no frame ups by the police, no facing down billy clubs and fixed bayonets with stones and your fingernails--nothing worse than some coarse speech, hysterical shouting, and barefaced lying in most cases, with the worst danger being a lone political outlaw with a bomb or a gun.
I don't make light of such danger. But if a priest or minister has been assassinated or a church bombed lately, I haven't heard of it, and I remember both things happening some forty odd years ago. From that perspective, "persecution by raised eyebrow" doesn't impress me greatly.
I have a long enough memory to know that it's a whole lot more civilized than it used to be: no lynchings, no tar and featherings, no fistfights in the streets, no frame ups by the police, no facing down billy clubs and fixed bayonets with stones and your fingernails--nothing worse than some coarse speech, hysterical shouting, and barefaced lying in most cases, with the worst danger being a lone political outlaw with a bomb or a gun.
I don't make light of such danger. But if a priest or minister has been assassinated or a church bombed lately, I haven't heard of it, and I remember both things happening some forty odd years ago. From that perspective, "persecution by raised eyebrow" doesn't impress me greatly.
4.18.2012 | 8:00pm
Mouse says:
Interesting, will have to check this book out further, thanks for noting it.
I think one problem is that people who think they are orthodox Christians actually have internalized the culture's avarice and greed, and consider them normal - first we have to re-teach Christians that avarice and greed are not normal, and educate them to see the many, many ways in which our financial system and culture promote and dare I say live on greed.... Can an orthodox Christian work for a financial investment firm (or one of the ubiquitous corporations owned by such), once you understand that greed is the driving motive of most of them (defined in this case as a desire to have more and more money for it's own sake - believe me, the guys that run these firms think making money is the be all and end all of human life, and it shows in their policies... Does this author talk about that kind of thing, I wonder?
I think one problem is that people who think they are orthodox Christians actually have internalized the culture's avarice and greed, and consider them normal - first we have to re-teach Christians that avarice and greed are not normal, and educate them to see the many, many ways in which our financial system and culture promote and dare I say live on greed.... Can an orthodox Christian work for a financial investment firm (or one of the ubiquitous corporations owned by such), once you understand that greed is the driving motive of most of them (defined in this case as a desire to have more and more money for it's own sake - believe me, the guys that run these firms think making money is the be all and end all of human life, and it shows in their policies... Does this author talk about that kind of thing, I wonder?
4.18.2012 | 8:02pm
Mouse says:
@Gil - What? Perhaps you don't realize that de Chardin is not a trustworthy source of theology (de Chardin is the source of the so-called Omega point, an erroneous reading of the real thing, which is the Parousia).
4.18.2012 | 11:39pm
edmond says:
I agree with Gil and Cylea, thank you for the clarity. SIn is all about selfishness. The first sin was pride committed by lucifer against God, ergo his "non serviam". Today selfishness and self-indulgence have been made acceptable, "re-packaged" through a strain of "liberal thought". The idea has taken root in all major world cultures. Mouse' point about avarice and greed accepted as being normal supports this. I work for a multi national corp but it is not unthinkable that a christian can make a difference in these settings, a difference that may become corporate direction.
4.19.2012 | 9:54am
Rhinestone Suderman says:
No, Joseph, the government sanctioned church bombings and the like haven't come here.
Not yet.
That was the point of my post. That the little stuff precedes the big stuff, and that oppressive governments don't start out with the concentration camps, and gulags, right away. They start out with "lawfare" and with demonization---then work their way up.
And, on a worldwide basis, in places like the Sudan, the Middle East and North Korea, Christians are facing real persecution. In some of these places it could well be called ethnic cleansing.
Not yet.
That was the point of my post. That the little stuff precedes the big stuff, and that oppressive governments don't start out with the concentration camps, and gulags, right away. They start out with "lawfare" and with demonization---then work their way up.
And, on a worldwide basis, in places like the Sudan, the Middle East and North Korea, Christians are facing real persecution. In some of these places it could well be called ethnic cleansing.
4.19.2012 | 6:20pm
Gil says:
Mouse,
I accept your clarification on Omega Point. It doesn’t help that I’m referencing the Alpha Omega that is Christ, because, as you point out, ‘Omega Point” is a de Chardin idea that places far too much emphasis on evolution in contradistinction to transfiguration brought about at the Parousia.
I do, however, find de Chardin’s transhumanism interesting and even helpful in trying to discern technology’s role in broadening global consciousness and deepening our appreciation of our radical interconnectedness as humans and how this interconnectedness finds expression through the Internet and other forms of global communication. This technology is threatening, no doubt, but it is here to stay and Christians must find a way to use it in a way that does not continue to dehumanize us, especially in how it alienates us by turning the perception of human reality into high abstraction, which is a strike against our humanity, and it seems to me that de Chardin can help in this corrective if we don't get snagged into heterodox beliefs!
In any case, I agree with you that de Chardin stepped outside of orthodoxy on at least three important points, but I still think he has much to offer Christians in their discernment as Christians moving into the age of hyper-technology. After all, I’ve heard many homilies from priests that were far more heterodox than anything de Chardin wrote, and as Christians we have the responsibility to learn how to distinguish and embrace orthodox affirmations wherever we find them.
I accept your clarification on Omega Point. It doesn’t help that I’m referencing the Alpha Omega that is Christ, because, as you point out, ‘Omega Point” is a de Chardin idea that places far too much emphasis on evolution in contradistinction to transfiguration brought about at the Parousia.
I do, however, find de Chardin’s transhumanism interesting and even helpful in trying to discern technology’s role in broadening global consciousness and deepening our appreciation of our radical interconnectedness as humans and how this interconnectedness finds expression through the Internet and other forms of global communication. This technology is threatening, no doubt, but it is here to stay and Christians must find a way to use it in a way that does not continue to dehumanize us, especially in how it alienates us by turning the perception of human reality into high abstraction, which is a strike against our humanity, and it seems to me that de Chardin can help in this corrective if we don't get snagged into heterodox beliefs!
In any case, I agree with you that de Chardin stepped outside of orthodoxy on at least three important points, but I still think he has much to offer Christians in their discernment as Christians moving into the age of hyper-technology. After all, I’ve heard many homilies from priests that were far more heterodox than anything de Chardin wrote, and as Christians we have the responsibility to learn how to distinguish and embrace orthodox affirmations wherever we find them.
4.19.2012 | 6:25pm
Gil says:
Ferd,
In our disagreement I would add that Jesus in his self-emptying took on ALL of sinful flesh without sinning, and I see this singular act as yet another affirmation of us being the peak of Creation, for it is the beginning of what will eventually become the transfiguration of the universe, yet this transfiguration begins in the human person, every human person, as the peak of Creation. In other words, just as Adam and Eve disobeying (sinning) results in the entire universe falling, so too will the beginning of the restoration of man and woman be the beginning of the restoration of the entire universe, which will have its completion in the final transfiguration where heaven and earth will pass away (which does not imply the destruction of the universe, but its transfiguration, which has already occurred in Jesus and Mary). Again, God breathing into us and giving us life radically different from all other life forms in the universe in itself speaks to the phenomenon of us being the peak of creation. Isn’t what is gifted to us alone in this act what makes us into the image and likeness of God? Isn’t this already an aspect of our divinization which radically implies that we are the peak of Creation, on a plane higher than the rest of Creation that speaks of our destiny that will finally be revealed in Christ? "It was not the angel but the human being who was created by God in His own image. And it was not angelic, but human nature that was assumed by God in the Incarnation."
In our disagreement I would add that Jesus in his self-emptying took on ALL of sinful flesh without sinning, and I see this singular act as yet another affirmation of us being the peak of Creation, for it is the beginning of what will eventually become the transfiguration of the universe, yet this transfiguration begins in the human person, every human person, as the peak of Creation. In other words, just as Adam and Eve disobeying (sinning) results in the entire universe falling, so too will the beginning of the restoration of man and woman be the beginning of the restoration of the entire universe, which will have its completion in the final transfiguration where heaven and earth will pass away (which does not imply the destruction of the universe, but its transfiguration, which has already occurred in Jesus and Mary). Again, God breathing into us and giving us life radically different from all other life forms in the universe in itself speaks to the phenomenon of us being the peak of creation. Isn’t what is gifted to us alone in this act what makes us into the image and likeness of God? Isn’t this already an aspect of our divinization which radically implies that we are the peak of Creation, on a plane higher than the rest of Creation that speaks of our destiny that will finally be revealed in Christ? "It was not the angel but the human being who was created by God in His own image. And it was not angelic, but human nature that was assumed by God in the Incarnation."
4.19.2012 | 6:30pm
Gil says:
Eleni Rigual,
You stress that my commentary “makes it all about us and all about love”. Yes, that is the point of all that I write, that God so loved the world he gave his only begotten Son for us in his absolute love for us, even to death on a cross. The price for every sin past present future has been paid for. All we have to do is accept that this is so and repent. That’s really all there is to it. Everything God has done, from creating the universe to sending his Son to pay the cost of our rebellion was solely for US. He in no way did anything for Himself.
Of course, for US it all has to be about the Glory of God as you state. In fact, it is only by opening ourselves up to the Glory of God that we can even glimpse the meaning of the great gift of life and the forgiveness of our rebellions. And in that glimpse it is possible to see that in truly making us His children in Christ, according to Paul we become sons and daughters of God who will in being conformed to Christ’s divinity gain power over the world, angels, and Satan (1 Corinthians 3:21-23; 1 Corinthians 6:2-3; Romans 16:20). We do not become gods unto ourselves, gods independent of Christ, but gods in the light of being conformed to Christ’s divinity. Here are some quotes from saints of the Church on divinization:
“God became what we are in order to make us what he is himself. – St. Iranaeus of Lyons
“He who obeys the Lord and follows the prophecy given through him . . . becomes a god while still moving about in the flesh.” – St. Clemens of Alexandria
"God became man so that men might become gods.” – St. Athanasius
“we are called 'temples of God' and indeed 'gods', and so we are." – St. Cyril of Alexandria
“…become gods for (God's) sake, since (God) became man for our sake." – St. Gregory of Nazinanzus
Of course all of these saints are not talking about being gods, but being gods in Christ, and that’s a major difference, and that is what I’m referencing.
But this begs the question: should we even go there? What’s the point? The point is that the secular world that has abandoned God conspires against the revelation of Christ at every turn, and its relentless attack on Christ always begins and ends with the dehumanization of the human person, and, as I argued earlier, we are the peak of Creation and in that status have been bestowed with a special dignity, a dignity that cannot be violated, and the saints I quote here speak to that dignity. They in no way want to set us up as independent gods, knowing our state of contingency, always in every second dependent on the grace of God to sustain our every breath. They just know too well how the enemies of Christ seek first to dehumanize the human person, and that almost always begins by in some way equating us with the rest of life, when in fact it is the human person who is destined to be a child of God in Christ with all that that implies. St. Athanasius: "The Word became flesh…that we, partaking of his Spirit, might be deified."
You stress that my commentary “makes it all about us and all about love”. Yes, that is the point of all that I write, that God so loved the world he gave his only begotten Son for us in his absolute love for us, even to death on a cross. The price for every sin past present future has been paid for. All we have to do is accept that this is so and repent. That’s really all there is to it. Everything God has done, from creating the universe to sending his Son to pay the cost of our rebellion was solely for US. He in no way did anything for Himself.
Of course, for US it all has to be about the Glory of God as you state. In fact, it is only by opening ourselves up to the Glory of God that we can even glimpse the meaning of the great gift of life and the forgiveness of our rebellions. And in that glimpse it is possible to see that in truly making us His children in Christ, according to Paul we become sons and daughters of God who will in being conformed to Christ’s divinity gain power over the world, angels, and Satan (1 Corinthians 3:21-23; 1 Corinthians 6:2-3; Romans 16:20). We do not become gods unto ourselves, gods independent of Christ, but gods in the light of being conformed to Christ’s divinity. Here are some quotes from saints of the Church on divinization:
“God became what we are in order to make us what he is himself. – St. Iranaeus of Lyons
“He who obeys the Lord and follows the prophecy given through him . . . becomes a god while still moving about in the flesh.” – St. Clemens of Alexandria
"God became man so that men might become gods.” – St. Athanasius
“we are called 'temples of God' and indeed 'gods', and so we are." – St. Cyril of Alexandria
“…become gods for (God's) sake, since (God) became man for our sake." – St. Gregory of Nazinanzus
Of course all of these saints are not talking about being gods, but being gods in Christ, and that’s a major difference, and that is what I’m referencing.
But this begs the question: should we even go there? What’s the point? The point is that the secular world that has abandoned God conspires against the revelation of Christ at every turn, and its relentless attack on Christ always begins and ends with the dehumanization of the human person, and, as I argued earlier, we are the peak of Creation and in that status have been bestowed with a special dignity, a dignity that cannot be violated, and the saints I quote here speak to that dignity. They in no way want to set us up as independent gods, knowing our state of contingency, always in every second dependent on the grace of God to sustain our every breath. They just know too well how the enemies of Christ seek first to dehumanize the human person, and that almost always begins by in some way equating us with the rest of life, when in fact it is the human person who is destined to be a child of God in Christ with all that that implies. St. Athanasius: "The Word became flesh…that we, partaking of his Spirit, might be deified."
4.19.2012 | 6:58pm
Cylea says:
Gian,
I'm uncomfortable with making declarations of inevitability (those would seem to be the prerogative of Someone Else!), but I'll agree that the Sexual Revolution seems to be a very natural extension of "the glorification of the pursuit of self-interest." All people required to carry out this ideal was the opportunity and ability to do so. As the article above quoted:
"Our appetites have increased in proportion to our unprecedented wealth, and our immediate-gratification culture has been made possible by material abundance and technological progress...."
I'm uncomfortable with making declarations of inevitability (those would seem to be the prerogative of Someone Else!), but I'll agree that the Sexual Revolution seems to be a very natural extension of "the glorification of the pursuit of self-interest." All people required to carry out this ideal was the opportunity and ability to do so. As the article above quoted:
"Our appetites have increased in proportion to our unprecedented wealth, and our immediate-gratification culture has been made possible by material abundance and technological progress...."
4.19.2012 | 11:01pm
Gil says:
Yes. God’s act of creating us for eternal bliss as His children is a GIFT. It follows, then, that us being made in an act that is absolute Gift makes GIFT our essence, and it follows that we are who we are when we live as GIFT to each other, which makes selfishness the absolute negation of who we are in essence.
4.20.2012 | 8:28am
ferd says:
Gil, we do not disagree. I am merely trying to expand your view of creation beyond this time and universe, beyond physical matter. The vast bulk of creation is beyond our viewing just now. Weak, human beings were gifted at the very end of the age. Humans were quite limited, compared to the rest of creation, even before the Fall.
Perhaps, this exercise will help: imagine every limited good being (capable of free will) you could possibly think of. Put them in descending order away from an unlimited, perfect God. At some point your creatures become less and less capable of free will because of their limitations.
My point is that, you are right to say that Mankind under Christ's salvific grace is NOW at a potential pinnacle of creation. But, I am also correct to point out that we and this universe are at the vanishing point of potential creation. We are currently at the top of the bottom layer of creation.
Perhaps, this exercise will help: imagine every limited good being (capable of free will) you could possibly think of. Put them in descending order away from an unlimited, perfect God. At some point your creatures become less and less capable of free will because of their limitations.
My point is that, you are right to say that Mankind under Christ's salvific grace is NOW at a potential pinnacle of creation. But, I am also correct to point out that we and this universe are at the vanishing point of potential creation. We are currently at the top of the bottom layer of creation.
4.20.2012 | 3:43pm
Gil says:
ferd,
As much as I enjoy our exchange, I am certain we have a disagreement, as in when you write, " Weak, human beings were gifted at the very end of the age. Humans were quite limited, compared to the rest of creation, even before the Fall."
I argue that although thousands of other species throughout history were apparently stronger than the human species in most ways, there were these two things that we possessed, faculties associated with being made in the image and likeness of God as well as special graces bestowed upon us that made us not only stronger in essence than all other species, but also possessing what is required to be caretakers of all other forms of life, especially before the Fall.
One thing I hope for is that someone will develop a theology of weakness. At age 7 I was made brutally aware of my weaknesses (I was the weakest and most terrified person I knew, certainly moreso than all my siblings) and my deep-rooted cowardliness, which made me that much weaker! Yet the three strongest of my siblings (Tommy, Lee and Darlene) all succumbed in their great strengths to madness and death. At age 65 I'm just beginning to get a glimpse of the power of weakness that transcends all the obvious strengths of existence, and the light of Christ’s weakness is what guides me best.
God, after all, has a great sense of humor.
As much as I enjoy our exchange, I am certain we have a disagreement, as in when you write, " Weak, human beings were gifted at the very end of the age. Humans were quite limited, compared to the rest of creation, even before the Fall."
I argue that although thousands of other species throughout history were apparently stronger than the human species in most ways, there were these two things that we possessed, faculties associated with being made in the image and likeness of God as well as special graces bestowed upon us that made us not only stronger in essence than all other species, but also possessing what is required to be caretakers of all other forms of life, especially before the Fall.
One thing I hope for is that someone will develop a theology of weakness. At age 7 I was made brutally aware of my weaknesses (I was the weakest and most terrified person I knew, certainly moreso than all my siblings) and my deep-rooted cowardliness, which made me that much weaker! Yet the three strongest of my siblings (Tommy, Lee and Darlene) all succumbed in their great strengths to madness and death. At age 65 I'm just beginning to get a glimpse of the power of weakness that transcends all the obvious strengths of existence, and the light of Christ’s weakness is what guides me best.
God, after all, has a great sense of humor.
4.21.2012 | 6:38am
Sarah says:
Can an orthodox Christian work for a financial investment firm? That's a legitimit question. As Orthodox Christians we are called to be constantly aware of God's presence and to be constantly striving to work out our salvation. The most visible implementation of that striving is the monastic life, where worldly cares and concerns are abandoned or at least completely submitted to the activities of the spiritual life. But not all of us are called to monastic life. Most of us are called to marriage and family life, and others to a life of celibacy in the world. Those of us who live in the world, with rare exceptions, find ourselves with the necessity to work in some occupation or profession so that we can make a living.
4.22.2012 | 2:15am
Christopher Clayton says:
Gil - this is hardly a contribution to the discussion, but merely a statement of appreciation for your presence in it.
Your view of the meaning of Eden and our exile from it, post-apple, was for me a gift of a wonderful parallax view of a central biblical metaphor.
Sixty five eh? Lord, even more ancient than me.
Your view of the meaning of Eden and our exile from it, post-apple, was for me a gift of a wonderful parallax view of a central biblical metaphor.
Sixty five eh? Lord, even more ancient than me.
4.23.2012 | 4:02pm
Gil says:
Christopher Clayton,
Thanks for the encouragement. Doesn't show up much, especially at church!
Thanks for the encouragement. Doesn't show up much, especially at church!
7.15.2012 | 1:41pm
Placidia says:
Interesting article and interesting comments! Here's my (Canadian) 2 cents worth.
If religion is eliminated from the Public Square, then the public square will disappear.
Why are we commenting here and not on the comments page of the NYT? Because we are at home here; and not there. The public square is those institutions and individuals who believe that they speak for all - like the CBC, which no one watches except when there's a hockey game. When a society becomes so fragmented that the only issues of universal interest involve men with pucks, then there is no public square and no "public debate". If there were a public square, we would not be talking about it. We would be in it, and talking about something else.
What we have to fear is social fragmentation. The Church will continue to exist, at the centre of world history (at least in God's eyes). Society will not, in the traditional sense, exist but will be replaced by bureaucracies and rules. There will not be a public square from which churches may or may not be banished, and to which they might return. There will simply be no public square at all.
If religion is eliminated from the Public Square, then the public square will disappear.
Why are we commenting here and not on the comments page of the NYT? Because we are at home here; and not there. The public square is those institutions and individuals who believe that they speak for all - like the CBC, which no one watches except when there's a hockey game. When a society becomes so fragmented that the only issues of universal interest involve men with pucks, then there is no public square and no "public debate". If there were a public square, we would not be talking about it. We would be in it, and talking about something else.
What we have to fear is social fragmentation. The Church will continue to exist, at the centre of world history (at least in God's eyes). Society will not, in the traditional sense, exist but will be replaced by bureaucracies and rules. There will not be a public square from which churches may or may not be banished, and to which they might return. There will simply be no public square at all.
