On the Essence of Marriage, Writing Well, and Good Popular Academic Writers

I want to write a book on marriage titled “ On Marriage”. It has been a recurring thought of mine that an intellectual and heartfelt defense of the classical Christian view of marriage (one man, one woman, lifetime commitment, love, kids, under God) would be timely. My goal is to defend the Christian view of marriage against the modern liberal take of marriage, which is, as far as I can tell, summed up in a few phrases: “We love each other. We want the benefits of civil marriage. No more questions.” My hope is that the book will appeal to the average reader (Christian or not) and not go over anyone’s head.

I have begun my research, taken some notes, and just the other day I wrote a preliminary outline. Things are going well (though slowly). Still, there are a few snags that will have to be solved along the way. One of these problems is particularly troubling to me: I don’t know if I can write a book like this for a popular audience.

After reviewing my first outline I realized that no one would read this book but academics and pastors due to the technical language, depth, and possible length of such a book. It is not terrible for a book to be read only by academics and pastors, since scholars and pastors have quite a bit of influence these days, so I might change my target audience. But for now, I want to provide a teaching on classical Christian marriage that will appeal to the average reader.

(I became aware that I tend to write more academically after giving my thesis paper, “Virtue Ethics and Pastoral Ministry”, to some well-intentioned family members. One family member said they had fallen asleep when they first attempted to read my thesis. They have not gotten back to me yet. The other family member said that it was quite technical and also has failed to get back to me on any further impressions.)

These thoughts all lead me to wonder: what makes for good, popular –yet academic – reading? I currently have few answers to this question. The clues I have gathered come from other authors who are very clever and draw audiences both academic and average. The best way for me to think about this is to focus on four authors who I think do a good job of being both popular and academic: Malcolm Gladwell, Gilbert Meilander, Josef Pieper, and Clive Staples Lewis.

I think I was too young when I read my first book by Malcolm Gladwell. I was twenty or so. The book was The Tipping Point. I didn’t quite understand the book, but I believe it is about when things (movements, brands, etc.) go from moderately popular (or worse) to very popular. It was a good book as far as I can remember.

The second of Gladwell’s books I have read is called Blink, which is an interesting book about how important intuitive knowledge is. By intuition I don’t mean the type that we often think of when we hear the word “intuition”. Here I am not talking about unstudied, almost mystical, intuition, but the intuition that comes after long study of a subject or topic, which results in the ability to make correct snap decisions. Now, I’m not sure if that is what the book is really about, but I think it is. I didn’t totally get that book either. I was probably twenty-one or so.

In the past five months or so I’ve become more acquainted with and therefore more comfortable with Gladwell. Over the past year I have started to understand him better. I have listened to some interviews of Gladwell regarding one of his newer books, Outliers, and I have been reading the collection of his best pieces from the New Yorker called What the Dog Saw. I have been impressed with Gladwell in two specific ways: depth of insight and the eloquence (readability). Gladwell has an ability to talk about complex things with patience enough not to overlook important factors that audiences need to know about, and he does this in a very readable and interesting way.

Therefore, I have decided to learn from Gladwell. What have I learned so far? I’ve learned that someone can make me interested in why Heinz Ketchup is so popular and that attempts to make a new ketchup fail. Gladwell knows how to make any topic interesting, whether they are serious topics (the character traits of geniuses, CEOs, etc) or not (Ketchup). Gladwell also strikes me as somewhat quirky, which is endearing.

From Gladwell’s works I have gleaned a few important pieces of advice: 1) It is important to be patient with your audience; don’t assume that people will follow (and therefore want to read) your work if you get lazy by assuming that people can understand your inferences. 2) A certain mastery of style is necessary, or a writing can become quite boring; it is good if your topic is interesting, but it is even better if you can get people excited about your topic through your persuasiveness and ability to write with style.

I have only a few words on Gilbert Meilander and Josef Pieper. First, I must note that these two authors are more academic than they are popular, though they have found admirers among more average readers. I have learned from Meilander that good writing often involves the weaving of story and fact. I have found that this provides a certain beauty to his academic musings. Then again, other times I find that this distracts me and makes it difficult to pull out what he is actually trying to get at. Pieper, on the other hand, writes succinctly and powerfully. Most of Pieper’s books are on topics of major philosophical importance, and yet he rarely spends more than a hundred pages on a volume, which is amazing to me.

Thinking on the works of Meilander and Pieper I realize that little is added to what can be gleaned from Gladwell: Style (whether more poetic or more powerful) and content (providing evidence and making good points based on the evidence) are essential to master.

These same essentials appear in the works of C.S. Lewis. Lewis, for me, is almost the pinnacle of making very deep things extremely understandable. The first book of Lewis’ that I read was his very popular, very influential, and very scholarly (and yet simple) Mere Christianity. I did not understand much of that book during my first read-through. (To be truthful, I now recall that I have had very little understanding of Gladwell, Meilander, Pieper, and Lewis upon first encounters. I attribute this to my young brain. By young brain I mean the brain I had before I actually began to think of things with depth; before I could read well. In fact, I used to read merely for the pleasure of consumption rather than for knowledge, intellectual sparing, or the simple pleasure of reading itself. I was like a glutton who ate food even after he was full; I cared little for true nourishment. But perhaps this is another point to be gleaned from popular academic writers, that not everybody will understand them at first, but more exposure will help.)

I believe that Lewis’ ability to boil down major problems into a few understandable paragraphs must come from his own intellect, which I believe did this almost automatically (though, perhaps is more like the intuitive knowledge that I referred to when speaking of Blink; a great ability to see things quickly, but only after having much previous exposure).

Look at Lewis’ works. They are not very long, and yet they deal with topics of such depth that we could spend a lifetime of study on them. It was only after having studied, in depth, the seven virtues of the Christian life, (four natural: prudence, justice, fortitude, temperance; three supernatural: faith, hope, love) that I looked back at the sections in Lewis’ Mere Christianity that cover these virtues and found, to my amazement, that he boils some of these teachings down to mere pages. Lewis was also great using examples that made sense.

There is one common trait that I see in the authors mentioned, which must be essential to any intellectual writing: Gladwell, Meilander, Pieper, and Lewis have the uncanny ability to see the essence (the core part or parts) of a thing (whatever topic they write on). Therefore, they can boil there topics into their most basic elements, and if you explain these most basic elements, then you have done a good job of boiling a difficult topic into something bite-sized, or at least manageable. I can also divide the four authors into two different stylistic schools (some of these authors fit nicely into either school): 1) Flowy, and; 2) Brisk. The Flowy school is easily identified because it often weaves different ways of saying the same thing together, though almost unnoticeably, or it brings up certain themes over and over again without us noticing until right before it comes up. The Brisk school writes short works powerfully and succinctly.

To sum up the two major lessons I have learned I will use two key phrases and define them. The first issue in writing popular academic works is what I will call the “academic concern”. Academic concern has to do with discovering the essence of a topic, or finding the core element or elements of a topic. Once this is discovered, a writer will be able to explain difficult topics in more easily managed pieces, unless the author gets lazy. The second lesson can be called “poetic concern”. The poetic concern refers to the ability to use a particular style (Flowy, Brisk, etc.) well, or the ability to combine styles well in one’s writing.

How can I apply this gleaned advice to my (hopefully) upcoming book, “On Christian Marriage”? First, I must address the “academic concern” by see the essence of the thing clearly. And being able to explain the essentials of marriage in a understandable and logical way.
Second, I can apply the knowledge gleaned from good popular academic authors by writing “On Christian Marriage” in a specific style (the “poetic concern”), either Flowy, Brisk, some combination of the two, or in a school that I have not thought of.

How to Help Haiti

If you are like me, you feel genuine sympathy for all the people suffering in Haiti, but your dilemma is that you are so far away and feel both physically distant and powerless to do anything. The generous donating of money is good, but there is must be something more that one can do. So, I will write to help Haiti, although I am not sure that this article will be of much help. As I have already said, I am far from Haiti. I am no expert on Haiti and provide this article as food for thought and action.

As I listen and watch news programs about Haiti I am astonished to find that most people focus on physical help. Of course the people in Haiti desperately need medical attention, food, housing, money, and heavy machinery to move ruble. This we cannot doubt. However, alongside previously listed needs, Haiti needs to have virtuous people with specific skills to rise up.

Good, skilled people. Haiti will not recover unless good, skilled people come into Haiti and train Haitians or find Haitians that are good, skilled people. What I call the physical help (medical attention, food, housing, money, and heavy machinery, etc.) that Haiti needs will only be useful if there are people who have the morals and the skills to organize, lead, and distribute well.

In the radio and television clips that I have seen, there has been little talk of Haitian leadership. I’m not sure why. However, I believe that the main concern for Haiti right now is leadership. Haiti needs a messiah (small ‘m’; meaning a political leader who will help to save Haiti from trouble) to rise up. When there is chaos and trouble evil tends to thrive.

There are stories of groups of Haitians who have just received food from foreign aid agencies and some person running into the crowd and saying ‘a tsunami is coming’ so that everyone will abandon their goods. The “boy who cried wolf” then turns into the wolf and takes all the goods that people have left behind. There are bands of people who – either because of their weapons, the size of their band, or their physicality – force other Haitians to give up whatever goods they have left.

Haiti needs good politicians who will unite people to the good causes of providing organization, civil stability, and some kind of law enforcement. Without political leaders (and this may be no more than a father leading his family, or a woman leading a group of 20-30 people) who are morally good and have political know-how and skill, evil leaders will rise up and torment the country.

Good, trained doctors, nurses, engineers, machine operators, economists, etc. are also needed in Haiti. Professionally qualified Haitians with these skills need to be found or trained. Without trained professionals there is little hope that Haiti will recover quickly or well from this recent disaster; both physical and personnel needs have to be met for Haiti to recover.

Help Haiti by giving money if you want. Giving money is better than nothing. However, my fellow Canadians must consider the needs for good personnel Haiti. If you are a good leader that can help organize and enable people, (and I doubt that you are), or if you are a qualified doctor, nurse, or an engineer, then consider actually going to Haiti. Or perhaps you know someone who fits into one of these categories that you can mention this to. If you cannot help and know of no one to help in Haiti, then we must pray. We must pray for order and leaders and engineers and doctors either to go to Haiti, to be trained up in Haiti, or both.

We must pray for Haiti. We must pray for good leaders to conquer evil gangs. We must pray for a type of Moses. May God hear the cries of the Haitians and our accompanying cries! Not that prayer is our only recourse, but it is an essential part of our love coming to fruition. Love must also come to completion in actions. How are we acting?

When A Civilization Is Ripe For Its Fall

In the first article of my last entry, Beginnings of Thoughts on American Politics and Religion, I made mention in the last paragraph that North American Christians should be thanking right-wing Christian groups for preserving the voice (and therefore the power) of Christian conscience in North America. Now, I may disagree with the Christian Right or the Moral Majority, but I do thank them for showing some gusto that many Christians have lost.
I was reminded of this as I was reading one of my favorite books today. Joseph Pieper's The Four Cardinal Virtues is an absolute treasure, and it is especially helpful for people who have grown up in a Christianity that is supposed to view sex as moderately good at best and to view anger as an absolute evil.
The quote I am getting to comes from a chapter called "The Power of Wrath" in the section on Temperance. Pieper says that wrath is in fact a Christian virtue if it is exorcised properly. Wrath as a virtue, says Pieper, is the energy necessary to do good and fight injustice. Other forms of anger are evil. "Anger is 'good' if, in accordance with the order of reason, it is brought into service for the true goals of man [i.e. justice, goodness,etc.]" (p. 194). Quoting St. Thomas he writes, "Reason opposes evil the more effectively when anger ministers at her side" (p. 194).
And now comes the quotation that I have been providing such a long preamble for, which itself is something of a preamble for its last paragraph that I want to highlight:

It is particularly in reference to overcoming intemperateness of sensual desore that the power of wrath acquires a special importance.
Aquinas, it is true, also says that an acute temptation to unchastity is most easily conquerable by flight. But he likewise knows that the addiction to degenerate pleasure-seeking can by no means be cured through a merely negative approach, through convulsively "shutting one's mind" to it. Thomas believes that the deterioration of one power of the soul should be healed and supplemented by the still undamaged core of some other power. Thus it should be possible to subdue and, as it were, to quench the limp intemperance of an unchaste lustfulness by attacking a difficult task with the resilient joy generated in the full power of wrath.
Only the combination of the intemperateness of lustfulness with the lazy inertia incapable of generating anger is the sign of complete and virtually hopeless degeneration. It appears whenever a caste, a people, or a whole civilization is ripe for its decline and fall. (p. 196)

Now, I'm not predicting the fall of North America or anything, but it might be helpful to remember that Christians sometimes need to get angry (virtuously), and to speak out to people who are doing injustice and allowing injustice. Although this might take great courage for a people who seem bent to a non-Christian niceness, and although our pluralistic society tends to beat the voice out of us (how ironic, as its voiced intention is to do otherwise), we must commit ourselves to God's ways, and to helping our earthly society by encouraging goodness, justice, temperance, courage, etc. And as salt, we will help to preserve.

American Politics, Tolkien, Monks with Guns, Fenelon, and Ecclesiastes

Yes, it has been a while since my last post. Please forgive the haste in which this has been written.

1) Beginnings of Thoughts on American Politics and Religion
2) J.R.R Tolkien's The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun
3) Buddhist Monks with Guns
4) Francois Fenelon on Dealing with Our Sins
5) Beginnings of Thoughts on Ecclesiastes

1) Beginnings of Thoughts on American Politics and Religion
I was thinking about the ideal forms of church and state and the ideal relationship between church and state the other day. Amidst my pondering I realized the the American Constitution is not as friendly to Christianity as is commonly thought.
Here are the beginnings of some more serious reflections to be had in the future:
I see the model in the USA to be essentially pluralistic. Freedom of religion is an essential freedom in the US. This pluralistic model seems partially good, especially from a stance within our own age (democracy was considered the worst form of government according to Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas (I presume), etc.). The pluralistic/democratic model frees Christians from much potential persecution, allows for freedom of worship, and does not (usually) hinder the Christian conscience.
However, I think that the pluralistic/democratic form of government bows to a Darwinian or perhaps Nietzschean theory, where the will to power conquers over the search for virtue, goodness, and truth. The theory is that the greatest good for the greatest amount of people is found in individual wills making concessions to each other. Personal concessions for the public good, this is the essence of the social contract (Rousseau). This seems good to the modern individualist, but might strike people from other ages as anti community. I would agree.
The basic assumption here is that people will get their way most of the time, but will have to give up certain freedoms of their will (i.e. the want to steal, etc.) in order for public order to preside, which is not so much for the good of the nation as it is for the good of the individuals.
But this presumes a nation of weak people. This Rousseauian/Lockean theory can easily be torn asunder once people with strong wills and the power/ability/money to get what they want realize that they can take advantage of the system. This has happened in the case of many powerful business owners and politicians.
The average person either has a weak will or does not have the means to get what they want. That is what the social contract theory presupposes. A Nietzschean Super Man with a strong will and the ability to get what his will desires can ruin such a system. I'm not sure how this might work (either than business and political scams, etc.) in real life, but this seems to be a theoretical weakness to the social contract theory.
The democratic theory also turns out to be largely Darwinian: the strongest survive. In the case of politics this means that people group with the most numbers, or the loudest voice can take over the system. In the past, this means that the Christian voice has stood out above the rest. This has lead to a Christian presumptuousness that America is a Christian nation.
I think that the opposite is true. I believe that America is set up to have a national religion that is largely deist. I believe this because the lowest common denominator between religions is that there is a god who created everything who is basically good, who we should follow. A pluralistic nation will most likely eventually ending up combining a number of theories about God into a watered-down version of sorts. Unless, of course, separate religion's voices become louder and therefore the dominant group.
American will never have more than a national religion because it is one people under God...it combines God, nationhood, and democracy into one system. The USA is not a Christian nation; it is a nation that is under whatever god becomes the most popular.
This overarching Darwinian underpinning (strongest survive) seems to lean to the fact that the social contract theory (most good for the most amount of people through conceding of will power for a orderly system that will allow my weak will to get what it can, but not so much that it won't get hurt) can be overcome by a Nieetzchean one (those with the strongest wills and the power to get what they want will rule).
The sketch presented here, rather than seeming basically Christian, appears to be anti-Christian in its presuppositions and leaning...as much as this was not intended by the Founding Fathers.
Although this system can be used for Christian means (when Christianity is at its most popular). Even when the system is used for Christian means, it can be argued that a Darwinian theory is supporting the Christian church (and vice versa) rather than the church providing for a more permanent political/theological/moral system.
The presiding pluralistic/Darwinian frame in the USA has seemed rather comfortable to Christians in the past, but that feeling is changing for many Christians. As more and more people from more and more countries find their homes in the USA, this might change even more. Perhaps the only reason that it has not changed more rapidly is because of groups like the Christian right and the Catholic church have kept their voices strong in the public square. That last one is an interesting thought.
Somewhat related, read this article from the New York Times.

2) J.R.R Tolkien's The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun
I just thought I would mention that I have been enjoying J.R.R. Tolkien's posthumously published The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun, which are two famous Norse poems. Tolkien has added some of his own words to these works, but he follows the old stories fairly well. He gave many lectures and classes on Norse legends.
I like reading sources from heroic ages. I enjoy the bravery, the interaction of mystical with every day live. Perhaps I am a romantic. I have also enjoyed reading this book of Tolkien's because the language is so poetic. It is incredible how much can be conveyed in a stanza with a mere thirty words to it. Beautiful.

3) Buddhist Monks with Guns
I read an interesting article today about violence and Buddhism. I mention it simply because it is interesting. The fact that Buddhist monks can commit violence, especially when faced with death, is not that surprising. Violence can be used for both good and evil.
Check out the article here: Monks with Guns: Discovering Buddhist Violence by Michael Jerryson

4) Francois Fenelon on Dealing with Our Sins


I have found the below quote from Francois Fenelon's Spiritual Progress to be quite helpful. It is from a chapter entitled "On Daily Faults and the Toleration of Ourselves".

"You will there find the weaknesses necessary to deprive you of all confidence in your own strength; but this discovery, far from discouraging, will serve to destroy your self-reliance, and to raze to the ground the edifice of pride. Nothing marks so decidedly the solid progress of a soul, as that it is enabled to view its own depravity without being disturbed or discouraged.
"It is an important precept to abstain from doing a wrong thing whenever we perceive it in time, and when we do not, to bear the humiliation of the fault courageously.
If a fault is perceived before it is committed, we must see to it that we do not resist and quench the Spirit of God, advising us of it inwardly. The Spirit is easily offended, and very jealous; He desires to be listened to and obeyed; He retires if He be displeased; the slightest resistance to Him is a wrong, for everything must yield to Him, the moment He is perceived. Faults of haste and frailty are nothing in comparison with those where we shut our ears to the voice of the Holy Spirit beginning to speak in the depths of the heart.
"Restlessness and an injured self-love will never mend those faults which are not perceived until after they are committed; on the contrary, such feelings are simply the impatience of wounded pride at beholding what confounds it. We must quietly humble ourselves in peace; I say in peace, for it is no humiliation to do it in a vexed and spiteful way. We must condemn our faults, mourn over them, repent of them, without seeking the slightest shadow of consolation in any excuse, and behold ourselves covered with confusion in the presence of God; and all this without being bitter against ourselves or discouraged; but peacefully reaping the profit of our humiliation. Thus from the serpent itself we draw the antidote to his venom."

5) Beginnings of Thoughts on Ecclesiastes
I wrote this some time ago after reflecting on Ecclesiastes. I read Ecclesiastes the other day and I still stand by much of what I wrote. However, I would like some interaction on this one so as to help my thoughts.

The Book of Ecclesiastes as Tragedy

If you have ever read the book in the Bible titled Ecclesiastes I’m sure that you have gone away puzzled and depressed. All throughout the book the author is telling us that there is no point to anything that we do, and that we must learn to enjoy our lives as much as we can, yet not too much so that we do not make God angry.
It seems to me that the author of Ecclesiastes has either missed a few important ideas, or he has become overcome with despair. The author does not believe in God’s vindication of the righteous, that is for sure. Although, he does believe that the moderately just will live above God’s “sin radar” and below the notice of those in power who might kill him or take advantage of him for his righteousness. Also, he believes, contrary to other biblical books, that the world is, at its core, conflicted: the good and the evil suffer similar fates, yet there is an importance to goodness; unjust rulers take advantage of everyone, yet wisdom does bring light to the eyes. He believes both that there is a just creator God, and that it is better to never have been born than to have lived at all.
Quite simply, the author of Ecclesiastes is conflicted and thus filled with despair. It is not a happy book at all.
The book of Ecclesiastes is a tragedy. The core of tragedy is irresolvable conflict. For instance, fairness is good and evil is bad, but there must be evil to have fairness, which is not really fair at all. However, it must be true that there is good and there is evil, or else we would not feel the conflict. One instance of this (and the book is filled with other such examples) is found in Ecclesiastes 5:8-9:
If you see in a province the oppression of the poor and the violation of justice and right, do not be amazed at the matter, for the high official is watched by a higher, and there are yet higher ones over them. But all things considered, this is an advantage for a land: a king for a ploughed field.
As long as there is power, there will be those who use it solely for their own gain, but these structures are necessary, so that there will be peace in the land. One ruling king is better than factions, and the king is powerful enough to protect you from oncoming armies, therefore providing a sense of peace and stability (represented by the ploughed field).
I believe that the author’s tragic outlook springs from his agnosticism. “Just as you do not know how the breath comes to the bones in the mother’s womb, so you do not know the works of God, who makes everything” (11.5); also, “I saw all the work of God, that no one can find out what is happening under the sun. However much they may toil in seeking, they will not find it out; even though those who are wise claim to know, they cannot find it out” (8.17). Although it is claimed that the teacher is wise (12.9), he does not have the same wisdom as that of the authors of the book of Proverbs. Perhaps the “wisdom” of Ecclesiastes even scorns the wisdom of Proverbs, or perhaps it was to be used as a sort of corrective for the extreme positivism found in Proverbs. Either way, Ecclesiastes leaves you feeling cold, unimportant, and in despair.

How do we respond to the author of Ecclesiastes? Is God conflicted in himself, with both good and evil? Or perhaps the traditional Christian understanding of the problem of evil is more satisfactory: evil springs from the free will of creatures, not from the Creator. We all know this, deeply, for we give prominence to fairness and order. All of the problems in Ecclesiastes can be reduced to three answers: 1) The evil in the world comes about from our moral problems, not from God; and, 2) God is “for” humans. This was revealed in Jesus’ coming to earth and his death for all, so that we might be with God. It is not his will for us to be disordered or in despair. 3) Judgment will solve the apparent inconsistencies involving justice in time. (both the judgment of sins in Christ, for the saved, and the judgment of the sins of the world, for those who do not accept Christ’s offer of salvation).

The tragic view affirms evil, while diminishing the role of goodness. This view destroys us, causing us to despair. The proper view is to see that god is good, and that he is being merciful to the evil so that they can repent of evil, and find salvation. He will later make all things new and he will order the universe aright. This brings light to our eyes and life to our bodies. Therefore, those who pursue life must affirm God’s essential goodness, and be patient until it is time for the final judgment.

Why is Ecclesiastes in the Bible? First of all, the Bible is not a children’s book. It takes intelligence and wisdom to be able to understand and interact with what is in the Bible. Ecclesiastes must be a large question mark for those who think that we should believe every word in every book of the Bible. If we affirm the words of Ecclesiastes, we must dismiss the affirmation of the goodness of God that is found in all other parts of the Bible. Therefore, we must be more adult in out interpretation and understanding of the Bible.
Ecclesiastes is perhaps best understood as a teaching instrument. When I taught ESL in China, after teaching good English for a while, I would insert some bad English (i.e. tell them that a picture of a dog is really a cat). I did this to make sure that the students were really learning and paying attention. Perhaps that is the place Ecclesiastes in the biblical canon, to instruct through falsehood. Otherwise, how could it be included among the other “wisdom literature”? Perhaps the same person or group of people put the wisdom literature together, knowing that they would use Ecclesiastes as a corrective and as a “false prophet” to test students. Perhaps this is what is meant in the Epilogue? (Besides being wise, the Teacher also taught the people knowledge, weighing and studying and arranging many proverbs (12.9).)
Perhaps this is when Jews decided that they needed to believe in resurrection to believe in a good God.

Advent

For an above- decent article on Advent, go here.

Here is an excerpt from the article that struck me in particular:
"I don't remember this opposition of Christmas and the Christmas season when I was young. When I was little—ah, the nostalgia of the childhood memoir—I always felt that the days right before Christmas were a time somehow out of time. Christmas Eve, especially, and the arrival of Christmas itself at midnight: The hours moved in ways different from their passage in ordinary time, and the sense of impending completion was somehow like a flavor even to the air we breathed."


The above quote strikes me because I have been thinking about how religious folk and non-religious folk think about time. Modern history is very linear. However, the Biblical and Christian view of time is that there are times that are "high times" which connect us in a mystical way with things that have happened either in the past or will happen in the future, or both. Modern understandings of time have been stripped of mystery, or their attachment to something or Someone beyond time. The above quote helps me to remember and to celebrate the high times, especially this Advent and Christmas. I encourage you to read the above quote again.

Grace and Peace,
Andrew

Quotes Along The Narrow Way

"Most want to possess the kingdom without labors and struggles and sweat, but this is impossible."
-Psuedo-Macarius (Homily 5, section 6; circa 380C.E.)

"That in which a man rests as in his last end, is master of his affections, since he takes therefrom his entire rule of life."
-St. Thomas Aquinas

"As we make progress in Him, through our way of life - in faith, in discipline, in virtue, and in community - our hearts will expand with the inexpressible sweetness of love; with hope we shall run together along the path of God's grace and commandments and we shall share in his divine life and his glorious kingdom."
-Adapted from the Prologue to the Rule of Saint Benedict.

"Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:
Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord;
seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence.
For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.
Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge,
and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness,
and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love.
For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins.
Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble;
for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you."
- 2 Peter 1. 1-11

Thoughts on Hauerwas' Sermon, A Glimpse At The City Of God, "Open Theology" Blown Wide Open, and J. Wesley on Religious Nuts and Libertines

I have not had much work lately. This is good news for you and partial good news for me, as it has given me reading and pondering time. Therefore, there is an exciting lineup of topics in this entry.
(Possible good news for me: there is a chance that I will be getting a job teaching ESL come January.)
I would suggest reading all articles this week, but not all in one sitting. (I say weekly because I will try to post weekly... on either a Friday, Saturday or Sunday every week).
I apologize for the length. I know that some are busy and some are lazy.

In This Issue:
1) Comments And Thoughts on Hauerwas' Sermon On The Badness Of The Reformation
2) A Glimpse At The City Of God
3) D.A Carson: "Open Theology" Blown Wide Open
4) J. Wesley on Religious Nuts and Libertines

1) Comments And Thoughts on Hauerwas' Sermon On The Badness Of The Reformation
In my last blog entry I drew attention to Stanley Hauerwas' Reformation Sunday (29 Oct, 1995) sermon on the why the Reformation was not so positive. In the sermon, Hauerwas, who is an Protestant, was critical of the Reformation and argued that the effects were more negative than positive. Actually, I'm not even sure if Hauerwas made one positive remark about the Reformation. This does not matter very much to me.
After reading Hauerwas' sermon, a friend of mine drew attention to the fact that Hauerwas was far too critical of the Reformation, because there have been very many good effects (such as the reformation of the Catholic Church, Christianity becoming more enlivened; all in all, a less corrupt Christian society).
I took a stance in between, agreeing with my friend that the Reformation has been very beneficial in many regards, but that we should be critical of it (especially as Protestants, who naturally want to view it in a positive light).
However, it must be asked: would the benefits of the Reformation been achieved without the Reformation, a little more patience, etc.? It must also be asked whether or not the long term results of the Reformation have been that good. My current position is realistic, in that we cannot turn back the clock. But I am also more critical than my previous fence-sitting position.
For instance, consider this important quote from Charles Taylor's monumental book about how the modern secular society came to be, A Secular Age: "True, it [the Reformation] reacts to another period of shocking laxity and corruption in high ecclesiastical places, but the Catholic Church it rejected had itself been the locus of reform efforts for several centuries..." (P. 243ff)
An important point that I take from this both is and is not Taylor's point. From this quote it is shown that, in the history of the Church, that reformation and renewal has always been important. From monks to confronting heresy and more, the Church has always been seeking godliness through types of reform. For the most part, though, these had happened inside the church walls. To be more blunt: If one of the driving forces within the Church is repentance, by which a person seeks unity within themselves (i.e. purity, holiness, etc.), then wasn't a less violent, lowercase 'r', reformation worth hoping for and being patient for? However, I concede that there are times when repentance must, in a way, cause violence within ourselves, which is obvious in the case of a drug addict bravely resisting powerful cravings.
As we know, much blood was spilled over the Reformation, many hard lines were drawn, great, though dwindling unity became discord (what did St. Paul have to say about this, as he feels unity to be so important), and divisions over leaders were made (again, what does St. Paul think about this; see 1 Corinthians 3). Would bearing with one another (Colossians 3:13) have been both more godly and more prudent? "For it is God's will that by doing right you should silence the ignorance of the foolish. As servants of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as a pretext for evil" (1 Peter 2:15,16). But perhaps the Reformation was a just and prudent, and therefore godly undertaking.
Also, I think that it can be argued that the Reformation was a type of revolution (and those living at the time must have thought of it as both a political revolution and a religious renewal, considering how religion was such an important part of the polis), a protestation against the governing authorities. Like many revolutions, the Reformation saw its goal as divine and just. Through this Reformation both church and state might be reformed!, the Reformers thought. But I would argue that it was the Devil who took hold of this thought; it was the Devil who twisted noble goals into ignoble goals in the heart of man, the results being shown much later. The result was that, ever so gradually, these people (all sides, since religion and nation were affiliated in the minds of all involved) combined religious goals with civic goals. This, in turn, brought people to think of their kingdoms and nations as sort of kingdoms of God on earth.
Whether this account is fully accurate or not, I think that it is true in outline. And this combining of the kingdom(s) of man with the Kingdom of God was further twisted by the Devil so that "this immense effort [of reforming the lives of citizens so that all might be godly, as is the goal of the church] seems itself to have obscured the essentials of the faith, and to have led to a substitution of something secondary for the primary goal of centring everything on God" (Charles Taylor, A Secular Age, p.244). Therefore, man's goals (including those of many Christians) become man-centered (anthropocentric), not God-centered (theocentric).
Perhaps thinking about the Reformation is a waste of time. It is not. It is true that we cannot turn back the clock (even if we want to), but we can learn for the future. One thing I have learned is this: Christians (and everyone really, even communist Atheists) must not look for the City of God to come to earth before Christ's return. To confuse the City of Man for the City of God is one of the biggest mistakes that can be made. To consider any man other than Jesus to be the Messiah, the Saviour (capital initial letters) is a tremendous problem, even when it results from good intentions. The Devil can dress up as an angel of light and incite men - who are ever so willing, and even if we are not, we are often dull enough to follow his plans - to build up the Tower of Babel once again.
I believe that many current problems and possibly many future ones can be explained by something like what is found in the remainder of this paragraph if we do not act on lessons learned: The City of Man, taught by the Devil, was inspired by the City of God to reach for a perfection which it cannot have. It is the problem of Babel all over again. In hoping that heaven could be accomplished on earth ( the wish of those who originally and even today want to build the Tower of Babel), men built a city based on their own abilities, which took divine agape, which is the property and great virtue of the City of God, and replaced it with philadelphia (which is also a godly virtue, if it is rightly ordered). But the love of man can only be understood rightly if there is some kind of love for God. As Aquinas points to, Seeing light is to loving God is as seeing colour is to loving man. It is only through seeing light that colour is illuminated (See the Summa Theologica II, II, Q.25, Art 1, IAT). Because it is no longer found in its proper order, love of man, or philadelphia, will also become a deformed, twisted sort of love. And philadelphia turns into self-love, emotivism and the rule of the will. Thus, God has scattered the people who have made Babel, and each speaks his own language; each has his own separate will and wants it alone to be done. However, men, from the after effects of true philadelphia, wanted to make a good society based on fairness. The truth is though, that most men know that they have weak wills and not enough power to get what they want, so they created societies based on rules and contracts so that the greatest amount of people could get the most of what they wanted. But there are and will be men with the power and the will get what they want. This is Nietzsche's Ubermensch,, the Superman, the strong-willed and powerful one who will take over the world. This is an antichrist. Will the righteous allow this continual twisting of what is good?
These troubling thoughts are almost too much for an article that began with considering the good of the Reformation, but they are not too much. However, I admit that this article has been presumptuous and too far-sweeping or all-engrossing, for which I apologize. I also apologize for what might seem to be a melodramatic end. I have sought to bring you on a journey of the mind that I have been on for a while and I have given you the cheep and fast tour.

2) A Glimpse At The City Of God

Continuing on my theme of the City of God and the City of Man, I want to meditate on a quote from Augustine's The City Of God Against The Pagans (otherwise known simply as The City Of God) Book V, Chapter 16. Read it slowly if you have the time. Here is the quote with my commentary (in blue):

[Augustine is trying to explain to his audience that the reason the Vandals (these were barbarians to the Romans) are able to attack Rome and give it so much trouble is not because they have started worshiping the Christian God and have largely turned from the Roman gods. In the process, he has to explain why God, in His providence, made Rome so glorious, even before it was officially a Christian republic/kingdom. He has just made the point that those virtuous Romans of the past sought only human glory, and that they have, in the words of Jesus, "received their reward in full" (Matt 6.2).]
Very different is the reward of the saints [which is not so small, nor as readily tangible and is not received on earth]. Here below they endure obloquy [reproach] for the City of God, which is hateful to the lovers of this world [the City of God itself and the idea of enduring reproach for something not tangible are both hated by the lovers of this world]. That City is eternal [and is therefore not to be found fully in time]; no one is born there, because no one dies. There is the true felicity, which is no goddess [Felicity was the name of one of the many Roman goddesses], but the gift of God [felicity is the gift of God, it is not to be got through honour from men, nor is it to be found by an earthly city. It is bestowed on us by God, we do not earn it]. From there we have received the pledge of faith, in that we sigh for her beauty while on our pilgrimage [the pledge of faith is the Holy Spirit that gives us a longing for the life that will be with God after death and also makes sense of our groaning for the life to come. We are pilgrims, sojourners, viators. This means that Christians are a people "on the way". We know we have not reached the final happiness, our final destination, but it is certainly real to us, and tangible in many ways. Our final joy is not in an earthly kingdom, but with God in eternal life, in the City of God. Christians must be patient on this journey, knowing that good and evil will often be mixed together during this life. Therefore, Christians must cultivate the godly virtues of faith, hope, patience, gentleness, and love]. In that City the sun does not rise 'on the good and on the evil' (Matt. 5:45) [Augustine had earlier made reference to this quote from Jesus. The point was that God has chosen a wise way of rewarding and punishing people during this life. I really recommend reading City of God, Book I, Chapter 8 for a good teaching on this, which helps us to understand why God allows evil to sometimes flourish during this life, while we have to wait for complete felicity in the life to come]; the 'sun of righteousness' (Mal, 4.2) spreads its light only on the good; there the public treasury needs no great efforts for its enrichment at the cost of private property [Having made earlier reference to giving life through birth, Augustine now makes reference to another resource that human cities need: taxes. Augustine highlights life and taxes as deficiencies in the state that need to be supplied, whereas St. Paul draws his readers attention to how the earthly city needs control over the lives and taxes of its citizens (see Romans 13:4-7) to maintain order]; for there the common stock is the treasury of truth [Happiness, truth, no taxes, and no death sounds nice to me. The goods of the City of God are held in common, which cannot be done on earth].

But more than this [that is, the Roman Empire was destined by God to be glorious in its pre-Christian days (and this lesson can be applied universally) not just so that the men would "receive their reward in full" for their human virtues of courage and valour, but there is a further purpose]; the Roman Empire was not extended and did not attain to glory in men's eyes simply for this, that men of this stamp should be accorded this kind of renewal. It had this further purpose, that the citizens of that Eternal City, in the days of their pilgrimage, should fix their eyes steadily and soberly on those examples and observe what love they should have towards the City on high, in view of life eternal, if the earthly city had received such devotion from her citizens, in their hope of glory in the sight of men [the further purpose was to incite Christians to be jealous of the love and virtues that the pre-Christian Romans had for Rome, so that they might be moved toward love of and virtue toward the City of God].

3) D.A Carson: "Open Theology" Blown Wide Open
Whether you know what "Open Theology" is or not, this seminar talk given by D.A. Carson is fantastic and illuminating. You can find the audio file here under Don Carson-Openness of God Theology.mp3. It is worth listening to all the way through.
"Open theology" is a theological position that attempts to solve the problems of there being evil in the world and the problem of predestination. (see Augustine's City of God Book I, Chapter 8 for some of Augustine's thoughts on the mixing of good and evil in the world and Book V, Chapters 9-11 for a decent discussion of God's providence and human will.) It does this by saying that God has chosen to limit himself by making it so that he cannot know exactly what is going to happen ahead of time. Sure, he can guess, and is a good guesser who is prudent and wise, but he doesn't really "know" the future. It is an interesting theological position that ends up with worse problems than double-predestination (the idea that God predestines people both to heaven and to hell).
I agree with Carson on many points, but I don't think on all.

4) J. Wesley on Religious Nuts and Libertines
I picked up John Wesley's A Plain Account of Christian Perfection about a year ago and I have been reading it on and off. It can serve as a good devotional book. In the book Wesley makes a good, intellectual, well-explained, case for what he means by "Christian perfection" and why it is possible to attain to. It reminds me of Andrew Murray's Absolute Surrender in some respects.
Nearing the end of the book, I was pleasantly surprised to find two sections that really struck my fancy. The first section is on what Wesley calls "enthusiasm", but what I have might call "Christian superstition" or "religious nuttery". The second section that I found interesting is directly after the first and has to do with religious libertines, or "antinomians", which are Christians who believe that the law does not apply to them, that they need not pray, nor read the Bible often. In simple English, an antinomian is anti=against, nomos=law. These sections really struck my fancy because I have fallen into ways of thinking similar to these before.
(To find the sections I am talking about, go to an online version, left click on Edit, at the top of your browser, left click on Find in This Page, and type in (without quotation marks) "what is the Second advice". The section on "enthusiasm" is under Q. 33 and the section on "antinomians" is under Q. 34)
There is much that I could draw attention to in from Wesley's discussions on enthusiasm and Antinomianism, but I am of little energy right now. Read them for yourself. Despite my reluctance, I do want to point out that, though many moderns/postmoderns might think that enthusiasm is for extreme (maybe right-wing) Christians and antinomian thinking is for nominal (liberal) Christians, they both spring from a presumption. Presumption makes you think that you have something (have achieved a goal) without having done the work for it (achieving the end without the means).
For enthusiasts, this means that the have an imagination to think that God is specifically talking to them, often through signs, dreams, visions, etc. These people are often thinking that they can read the inner sins of another and they let the other person know. Now, I know people who have been like this, both truly godly and not. Sometimes it is genuine. Wesley tells these people to "test the spirits".
For antinomians, presumption comes in the form of ideas like this: "I don't need to have specific times to pray each day, for I am praying without ceasing;" "every moment is a holy moment, so I need not go to church;" and, "why read the Bible consistently when the Spirit is informing me of his will every moment." This is presumption because the spiritual life is a journey, where we are growing in holiness, though Christ has already imputed it upon us. Antinomianism involves presuming that you are at a spiritual stage in your life that you are not at.