A Hauerwas Sermon, Wesleyan Hymns And Devotion, Aristotle On The State, and Equality Is Evil

Hello. I am happy to present you with an interesting lineup of articles for this posting. If you have time for any of the articles, let it be #4, as it is the most interesting, controversial and perhaps most important article you may ever read in your life. Enjoy.

In This Entry:
1) An Old(ish) Stanley Hauerwas Sermon On Why The Reformation Maybe Was not So Good.
2) Wesleyan Hymns And Devotion
3) Aristotle On States as Natural And The Highest Form Of Community
4) My Thoughts On How Equality Is Often An Evil.

1) An Old(ish) Stanley Hauerwas Sermon On Why The Reformation Maybe Was not So Good.
I was directed to an old(ish) sermon of Stanley Hauerwas' earlier today. The sermon was preached on Reformation Day, October 29, 1995. Although Hauerwas is a an Anglican and Reformation Day is supposed to be a day where all Protestants celebrate breaking away from the Catholic church, in this sermon Hauerwas bemoans the Reformation. The sermon is quite interesting. To read the sermon, click here.

2) Wesleyan Hymns And Devotion
I have recently realized that hymns are fantastic for devotional times. Though contemporary worship songs are often emotional, catchy, and musically decent, they leave something to be desired. I find that a number of more contemporary songs are a little "fluffy" and leave a lot to be desired theologically.
And so I have turned to hymns. Hymns can be musically boring, and are sometimes fluffy as well. But, when a good hymnist is discovered, their works provide for deep devotional times. Recently, I have discovered the hymns of Charles Wesley. Charles Wesley's hymns are poetic, theologically deep, and emotionally deep. If you are interested in doing something different for devotions, then consider going to the Wesley Center Online and looking at Charles Wesley's hymns.
Here is one of Charles Wesley's hymns chosen at random (capital letters are where new lines begin):
1 AUTHOR of faith, to thee I cry, To thee, who wouldst not have me die, But know the truth and live; Open mine eyes to see thy face, Work in my heart the saving grace, The life eternal give.
2 Shut up in unbelief I groan, And blindly serve a God unknown, Till thou the veil remove; The gift unspeakable impart, And write thy name upon my heart, And manifest thy love.
3 I know the work is only thine, The gift of faith is all divine; But, if on thee we call, Thou wilt the benefit bestow, And give us hearts to feel and know That thou hast died for all.
4 Thou bidd'st us knock and enter in, Come unto thee, and rest from sin, The blessing seek and find; Thou bidd'st us ask thy grace, and have; Thou canst, thou wouldst, this moment save Both me and all mankind.
5 Be it according to thy word! Now let me find my pardoning Lord, Let what I ask be given; The bar of unbelief remove, Open the door of faith and love, And take me into heaven.

3) Aristotle On States as Natural And The Highest Form Of Community
I think that people should read and attempt to understand much of Aristotle's works, as I have found them deep, wise, and of considerable importance. If you have not opened up any of Aristotle's works, you should check out his Nicomachean Ethics, or his Politics, as they are more easily understood and more readily applicable than some of his other works.
Here is a most interesting quote from Aristotle's Politics in which he comes to the conclusion that the state is a natural and the highest form of community. Previous to this quote, Aristotle has been talking about smaller groupings of people, such as families and tribes/villages.
"When several villages are united in a single complete community, large enough to be nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and continuing in existence for the sake of a good life. And therefore, if the earlier forms of society [families, tribes, villages] are natural, so is the state, for it is the end of them, and the nature of a thing is its end. [By This Aristotle means that a thing is most what it is supposed to be when it has developed fully. For example, a child does not show the nature of a human, for a child is said to be underdeveloped; whereas, a fully grown, intelligent, fully functioning adult is said to be the exemplar of what it means to be a human. Therefore, the most fully developed state of a thing is the end or goal of what a thing is supposed to be. In this case, Aristotle is arguing that the State is the fullest natural consequence of the relational nature of human beings.] For what each thing is hn fully developed, we call its nature, whether we are speaking of man, a horse, or a family. Besides, the final cause and end of a thing is the best, and to be self-sufficing is the end and the best.
"Hence, it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. And he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state, is either a bad man or above humanity."
I wonder what Aristotle would have to say about the United Nations or the European Union. Something tells me that he would think that they might be something of an abomination, or a lesser for of political community than the state. See some of Pierre Manent's thinking on this.

4) My Thoughts On How Equality Is Often An Evil.
Is it just me, or are some things more important than other? For instance, (1) the eye is more important than the little toe, (2) the boss is more important than the worker, (3) the governor is more essential than the civilian; and, (4) the intellect is more important than the emotions.
It is interesting that two of the books on political and societal change that I am reading both mention how important the idea of equality was in distorting society. In Charles Taylor's A Secular Age, one of the main points seems to be that, in the secularization of the West, equality has been a major factor. Taylor points out that this idea of equality began in the church (especially in the Protestant sects), as leadership thought that all people should be attaining to the same high level of piety. The same idea was floating around in society, as it was in the church, for a more moral citizen would make for a better citizen.
This idea of equality (which is now coming into its most fullest form of fruition, where people of all races, genders, sexual orientations, ages are equal) went against an older form of thinking that said that the distinctions between people are important. The idea was that of "hierarchical complementarity". Just as in the body, the intellect should be in charge so that the passions could be guided correctly and so receive the best forms of pleasure, so there were higher and lower levels in society, family, and church. However, it was not simply a matter of higher being better, or more essential (though they were), but that each level served their purpose. For instance, in medieval society, the poor, though low in social status, were thought to be more holy. The point is that, although there is a hierarchy, the levels complement each other and help to provide society, church, family with its fullest array of beauty and excellence.
This thought is looked down upon today. If a person says that a man is the proper leader of the family, many, if not most, would strongly disagree. But this idea of equality, of the great leveling of humanity, has with it a denial of there being an ordered creation, where God has given each thing its proper nature and end. If everything is equal, then there is no order to creation, and then there probably isn't a God. It is very interesting to learn how important equality has become in this secularization process, as Taylor points out many times throughout his book (and he is simply stating this as a fact, not arguing that it is good or bad).
This very same idea is important in Dostoevsky's The Possessed, which is something of a prophetic novel of how Communist ideals began to infiltrate Russian society. "Everything must be reduced to the common denominator of complete equality" says Peter Verkhovensky, one of the main characters. Good and evil, men and women, rich and poor, virtue and vice all become equated by the progressive socialists throughout the story. But even the main theorists in the story know that there must be a ruling class and a "normal human" class, which is, in fact, just how communism happened. It is interesting how this equality often brings along with it the rejection of theism, as it did with Communism, with many socialists, and as is the trend in this "secular age".
It is amazing to think that this idea of hierarchical complementarity, which is so frowned upon by many these days, is what most people have thought for most of history. And I would even go so far as to argue that those who believe the Bible is true must largely accept this hierarchical view of life.
Once again, this idea is expressed in a conversation in The Possessed: "By the way, Shatov insists that if an uprising were started in Russia, it would have to begin with atheism. Maybe he's right. There was a gruff, white-haired old captain among them. He sat in silence, but then he suddenly got up, stood in the middle of the room, and said aloud, but you know, as though he were talking to himself, 'If there were no God, how could I be a captain?' Then he picked up his cap, shrugged, and walked out."
The idea that the captain was voicing, though rather discreetly, in the above quote, is that, if there is no hierarchy, there is no God. If there is no God, then things have not been designed, and therefore, the old idea, that God gave things specific qualities, jobs, and natures, is false. The idea is expressed by J. P. Sartre, in his The Humanism of Existentialism: "When we conceive God as creator, He is generally thought of as a superior sort of artisan… When God creates He knows exactly what He is creating, thus, the concept of man in the mind of God is comparable to the concept of a paper cutter in the mind of the manufacturer" And since Sartre was an atheist, he thought the opposite: "Man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. ... There is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it. Not only is [each individual] man what he conceives himself to be, but he is also only what he wills himself to be after this thrust toward existence." This, is man's dignity, according to Sartre. And one of Dostoevsky's more extremely atheistic characters, decides that he wants to kill himself, as it is the most fearless act of self-creation, most fearless act of his own will.
But this is overtly un-Christian. In fact, this is anti-Christian! What a discovery!
It seems obvious that, in the Bible, men are to be leaders, political leaders are essential, good is better than evil, and that God is the highest in and beyond all creation. In the Bible, hierarchical complementarity is presupposed. So, perhaps we did something wrong when we decided to go against nature and start equalizing everything? I think that a strong case can be made that the Church Universal needs to go back to a more classical understanding of how creation actually works, for we seem to be conceding more and more as we agree with this idea of equality.
Equality is often an injustice. In stead of equality, we need to be exercising justice. Justice is giving something its due, and involves placing something in its rightful position, according to how God created it.
The church (and humanity in general, but I have more faith in Christ's church) needs to somehow regain the truths of the classical world and yet retain the good points of the post-classical world. How is this to be done? Perhaps I should write a book. This subject would be well worth researching!

Book Review: A Prayer to Our Father

Review: A Prayer to Our Father - Hebrew Origins of the Lord's Prayer

A Prayer to Our Father by Nehemia Gordon and Keith Johnson is the latest book that I have received as an Ooze Viral Blogger. While I was awaiting the arrival of the book I began to question my choice. Am I really interested in a book that does what so many others have done (that is, commented on the Lord’s Prayer)? After having read the book, I am glad to say that I enjoyed my time with the book, especially since it had so much in it that I did not expect.
A Prayer to Our Father is short (170 page), easy to read, moderately insightful, and quite entertaining. The premise of the book is that a devout, intellectual Jew named Nehemia Gordon and Keith Johnson and an African American Elder in the United Methodist Church (miraculously?) meet and team up to deliver a book that Chronicles their adventure to better understand the Lord’s Prayer, or the “Our Father”/ “Pater Noster”.
Due to the complex nature of Gordon and Johnson’s meeting, their journey, and the meaning of the Hebrew version of the Lord’s Prayer, the book can be divided into four major sections. The first section comes after the introduction and chronicles how the two very different authors, from two quite different backgrounds were able to come together. In the second section, the authors tell the very interesting story of how they came to be friends, and their discovery that the Lord’s Prayer, and the whole of the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (though this was new to them, this is not new to biblical scholars, though it is often undervalued).
The third section of the book was one of the most exciting parts for me, because it involves the two authors trying to find the actual place where Jesus spoke the Sermon on the Mount, which contains the Lord’s Prayer. The description of the place where Jesus probably preached the famous sermon will stick with me and be an incredible mental picture that will enliven that text for me.
In the fourth part, the authors explain and comment on the Lord’s Prayer using insights gained from the Hebrew text, which often brings clarity and insight to the passage. Though this part of the book was good, it was not great. However, I still believe that the gems that can be gathered from this section make this part of the book worth a glance.
Another major component of the book is that it involves a Jew and a Christian getting together and meeting on common ground. This provided insights that could not have been gleaned otherwise.
All in all, the book was mostly a pleasure to read (though there were moments where it got bogged down and the insight was almost anti-insightful to me). I would recommend this book, especially for the storyline and the discovery of the spot where the Sermon on the Mount was probably preached.

Check out the book's website here.
Listen to a interviews with the authors here and here.

News-Media, Devotional Life, Alexisonfire, and a Controversial News Article

In this blog:
1) News-Media
2) Straight Talk on Devotional Life
3) Alexisonfire's Anti-Christian Album
4) A Controversial News Article About War

1) News-Media
There were a few interesting articles in the Atlantic, October 2009 edition, especially revolving around media. The two articles that I would like to highlight are "The Story Behind the Story" by Mark Bowden and "Cheap Laughs" by Christopher Hitchens.
First, I thought that Christopher Hitchens made an interesting point in his article, "Cheap Laughs". The subtitle to the article reads: "the smug satire of liberal humorists debase our comedy - and our national conversation." Very interesting. Though I enjoy watching Jon Stewart from time to time and although I quite enjoy the Colbert Show and despite the fact that I enjoyed Al Franken's The Truth (With Jokes) I must say that I agree with Hitchens in his critique of how people have allowed these comedians to become major news analysts. Although satire can be very helpful in small doses (especially if it is done well - and a big part of the article is that it is not being done well). But if satire becomes the main source of news, it will help to sour its viewers even more, and this will take away from any possible national unity. Whereas the prophet is traditionally supposed to point out the evil in a nation, he should also give some hope, and he should be concerned about national unity. My basic argument is that when a nation's or generation's diet is solely or mostly or even substantially satirical, that generation or nation will turn on the government that provides a fairly good life. Though Hitchens doesn't seem to make the same argument that I am making, it certainly lies in his premise that the national conversation is debased by satire.
Secondly, Mark Bowden's "The Story Behind the Story" is an article that points to the fact that a lot of news coverage is nothing but the opinions of ideologists who drag up dirt and info, with little true, objective research in order to get their view across.
To make his case, Bowden takes the case of the resent Sotomayor nomination to the Supreme Court. Do you remember that, during Sotomayor's nomination, the news coverage was against her? The supposed evidence that Sotomayor was a racist, law-making judge were based on words that were directly from her mouth... though - Bowden proves - the statements were greatly taken out of context. But where did this pieces of evidence come from? who drug them up from Sotomayor's history?
It turns out that Morgen Richmond, a right-wing Christian (Sotomayor is a Democratic judge), randomly came across what he saw to be evidence against Sotomayor's judicial integrity and therefore legitimacy. Richmond posted a speech clip on his friend's site and on YouTube and left it at that. He was surprised to see it all over the news during Sotomayor's nomination.
The point that Bowden makes (and he uses only the case of Sotomayor's nomination, I believe) is that the news companies did little of their own research into Sotomayor, but relied on some media clips to stir up some controversial news that was more interesting and less work for them. These clips came from an under-researched, ideologically-driven source. (Granted, everyone is ideologically slanted, but there is a difference between basing your preference on researched truth than simply searching to back up your preference with under-researched 'truth'.)
Considering the power of news-media, it is extremely important that reporters and journalists do due diligence. We expect no less of any other job.
The classic (Platonic-Aristotelian) view of the soul is that the intellect comes first, then the will. The important thing to notice is that it is the intellect that moves the will. The intellect must properly see or perceive what is right and then move the will to do it. Bowden is getting at this same idea when he says, "Journalism, done right, is enormously powerful precisely because it does not seek power. It seeks truth" (p. 54).

2) Straight Talk on Devotional Life
A friend recently asked me what I do to try and keep my faith vibrant. I gave several answers that I believe to be important: Read the Bible consistently, pray consistently, write letters to God, read good authors, and be involved in a small group.
I said that it is up to us to to exert effort and to try and encourage a positive attitude in ourselves. Often, when we are down and not really feeling God moving, we tend to feel bad, and to blame God. Both of these reactions are counterproductive.
If we are feeling bad because of sin, we should remember the words of John Wesley: "And when the sense of our sin most abounds, the sense of his love should much more abound." It is true that we should feel bad about our sins and to do something about them, but to dwell on sin leads us into despair. We must know that, though our sin is great, God's mercy is all the greater and he loves us.
Sometimes when our spiritual lives are down we blame God. We blame God for not being tangible to us, for not being understandable to us, for not making us happy, etc. The truth is though, that God's goodness is the same all the time, so we really have reason to rejoice at all times. Rather than blaming God, it is important for us to continue or start developing our spiritual lives. We are the inconstant ones. We are the sinful ones. We are the ones that tend to pride and laziness. Read 2 Peter 1.3-11 to see what Peter recommends. He says that God has given us everything necessary for a god-ward life of virtue and unity with God, but that we must exercise and build upon our spiritual lives. We must use what God has already provided for us. And the ability to live such a life is given to people who have been cleansed of past sins.

3) Alexisonfire's Anti-Christian Album
Probably few readers of this blog are fans of the edgy band, Alexisonfire (Alexis on fire). However, to those readers who enjoy Alexisonfire, it is might be interesting to note how anti-Christian their new album, Old Crows/Young Cardinals is.
Here is my view on three of the songs on the album. I previously sent this in an email to a friend. There are a few changes here.
1) Born and Raised seems to be a raising of the question: "Is there a Creator who has made everything and therefore a hope of things beyond or is everything here through chance?" Perhaps they are settling with some sort of agnosticism. Fair enough. Perhaps we all feel a pull between wanting something better and yet seeing the indifference in nature. But the ideas of truth, justice, etc. seem to confront us with a universe that is very concerned with goodness.
2) The Northern seems to be a stinging critique (as it should be) of a type of Christianity that seems to be vindictive against people who disagree with it. I disagree with that view as well. It says in the case that it is based on an old hymn. The song reminds me that they are reacting against what Christians might call a "heresy" if we were living before 1700 or so. But now it is just one view among a few. A more proper view is strangely expressed by J.P. Sartre in his play No Exit where people are in hell due to their own vices and choosing. Also, without the punishment of wrongs after death, it is hard to argue that fairness or justice during life are anything but arbitrarily enforced.
3) Accept Crime surprised me as kind of a stupid argument after the at least semi-intellectual songs before it. They seem to be basing their argument for using their bodies as they please (especially in regards to the physical pleasure of sex) on the fact that no outside authority can tell them how to act. True enough. They don't have to listen. I would say that the authority must be internal to be consistent. In fact, I think their authority argument can go against them. It seems that many people use something external to retard sex: i.e. birth control. Also, it often seems to be our culture (an external authority/pressure of sorts) that leads us to consider that using our bodies as we please is the best thing to do. Many fail to consider that, perhaps, there is a greater pleasure (different than physical pleasure of course, which is palpable to even children) that can be grasped through self-control or temperance.

4) A Controversial News Article About War
Here is a link to a controversial article that might help us to reconsider the value of force and the necessity of injustice in war: Civil Fights: Goldstone's recipe for never-ending conflict by Evelyn Gordon.

Pierre Manent on Political Philosophy

Recently, I discovered Pierre Manent, a French political philosopher. Some of his stuff is genius and I will enjoy reading his books one day (hopefully soon, but I have some other to get through first). But for now I am left with an article he wrote for First Things back in May 2000, titled The Return of Political Philosophy.
The article is a bit lengthy and technical, but if you are at all interested in political philosophy or are discontent with modernity and modern politics, take a look at the article. It will be worth your while.