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!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment