Commendation and Critique

Commendation

Evocation 1

But how could we ever relate to God or, even more challenging, truly unite with Him? Of all religions, only Orthodox theology emphasizes union with God—in a real and actual sense—as the goal and purpose of all human life. We rarely speak of “going to heaven,” as though it were a destination. We do not speak of experiencing a “beatific vision” of God, as though God could be viewed but remained at some distance from us. Rather, Orthodox Christianity speaks of theosis, the divinization of the human person. We expect, hope, and strive for actual union with the perfect, infinite, eternal, omnipresent, and changeless God. But we are flawed, limited, and come into existence for a brief time; we are confined to one place at one time, and we are constantly changing. So how is union with God possible? The Incarnation, the enfleshment of the Son of God, gave us the ability to truly connect to God and become united with Him, transformed and illumined by Him, not simply because He died for us but because of the way He lived among us.

Dr. Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou, Thinking Orthodox

Evocation 2

“Yes, but Christ lived in the world. He did not lock himself into a monastery.”
“Let me ask you something Thomas,” father Maximaus replied. “How many years did Christ live in the world? Thirty-three years right? How many years did he preach?”
“Almost three”
“Right. Of the Thirty-three years, he preached for only about two and a half. What was he doing the previous thirty or so years?”
“Well there is the apocryphal life of Jesus that we don’t know much about,” Thomas replied.
“That means,“ father Maximos went on to say, “for that for thirty years Christ maintained a life of silence. …”

Kyriakos Markides, The Mountain of Silence

A Wise Policy

I’m starting at St. Tikhon’s Orthodox Theological Seminary this autumn. By your prayers, I’ll be ordained a priest in about three years.

Wisely, St. Tikhon’s does not allow seminarians to “teach.” That includes blogging and podcasting about the Faith.

Michael Warren Davis. What a wise policy! If memory serves, Davis is a fairly recent convert to the Orthodox faith from a reactionary Catholic stance — which is a second good reason why he shouldn’t be teaching (so why was I subscribing to his Substack?).

I wish we could put an effective ban on all newly-illumined Orthodoxen blogging or otherwise yammering about the faith for three years after conversion. My impression, from YouTube (since my social media practice is very narrow these days), is that, unrestrained, new converts can spew a lot of nonsense into the cybersphere.

Critique

America’s Ancestral Sin

Many say that slavery is our ancestral sin. I’m not so sure that it isn’t Puritanism. In fact, I can make a case for the outgrowth of Puritanism putting the wind in the sails of slave owners. Instead, I will lay two charges at the feet of the Calvinistic Puritans in America:

Avarice was refashioned as a virtue, and

Community was sacrificed to the solitary individual.

…

The sine qua non of Calvinism was their peculiar understanding of Predestination. The word does indeed exist, a time or two, in Scripture. But in over 1500 years, the Church never constructed an entire theological edifice upon this foundation. But to these novice Protestant interpreters of Scripture, no longer bound by the received teachings of the Church, the concept bespoke a sovereign God who had foreordained everything, and whose justice must be satisfied. Gone was the loving God of mercy, the Father in the Parable of the Prodigal Son, etc. Gone was the forgiveness inherent in the sacramental cycle of liturgical life. In its place, a wrathful God, in His sovereign omnipotence, had decreed the fate of every living thing, and there was simply nothing that any individual could do to add or subtract from this judgment.

This doctrine was as cold and unforgiving as concrete. If that was all there was, if everyone’s fate was already cut and dried, as it were, then the best response would be to simply live the best life, with as much enjoyment and pleasure as possible, for in the end, nothing you did really mattered. There certainly wouldn’t be any need to go to church, as it wouldn’t move the needle an iota. There would be no need for preachers to pound pulpits, and no need for anyone to show up to listen to them even if they did.

Terry Cowan, Predestinated America

Like Terry, I’ve never read Max Weber’s famous The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, but I own it now and plan to cure my unwarranted reduction of it to being something about the “Protestant work ethic.” It seems, per Cowan, that it’s more about Puritans than about Protestantism in general.

English Puritans in particular sought to shore up religious meaning by grounding it solely in the Bible and in a literalist approach to its interpretation.

In this literalist approach, ritual acts such as baptism were no longer trusted as working or signifying salvation; rather, to be saved, one must believe-in propositional, clear, biblical language-in God’s sole and definitive action in salvation, at most looking for evidence that this has taken place …Configuring salvation in these terms, the Reformation religious subject gradually became less a participant in communal, bodily ritual action, and more and more the Cartesian cogito, an individual, inward-looking possessor of knowledge drawn from evidence and analysis. If the “Cartesian moment” is that moment when as Francis Barker has asserted the self can be conceived of without the body, it is also the moment when it can be conceived of without ritual; by what might be called a Cartesian logic, the later English Reformation places efficacious signs of salvation elsewhere than church ritual, first in a literalist reading of Scripture, and ultimately in the individual conviction of the particular truths of Scripture and in the self who experiences it.

Lori Branch, Rituals of Spontaneity

If you’re skeptical about Puritans being that influential:

Puritanism is the only colonial religious system that modern historians take seriously as a major religious influence on the Revolution.

Mark A. Noll, America’s God

And again:

Conflating prosperity with providence and opting for acquisitiveness as the lesser of two evils until greed was rechristened as benign self-interest, modern Christians have in effect been engaged in a centuries-long attempt to prove Jesus wrong. “You cannot serve both God and Mammon.” Yes we can.

Brad S. Gregory, The Unintended Reformation

Tim Keller on Fundamentalism

Keller wanted evangelicals to recognize the difference between sound doctrinal convictions and what he called the “sociological location” of churches—the cultural attitudes and practices that are merely social characteristics of Christians in particular places, not theological doctrines. Keller was no fundamentalist. He saw the return of fundamentalism in the form of the Moral Majority as part of the problem. In 2022, he began speaking of the six social marks of evangelicalism, which he essentially equated with fundamentalism. These were moralism over gracious engagement, individualism over social reform, dualism over a comprehensive vision of life, anti-intellectualism over scholarship, anti-institutionalism over accountability, and enculturation over cultural reflection.

Dale Coulter, Remembering Tim Keller

Creationism

The word creationism by rights should define all who discern a divine mind at work in, with, or under the phenomena of the natural world. Yet by a most unfortunate set of events, the term has come to mean only the view that God created the world ten thousand or fewer years ago and that God used a worldwide flood in the days of Noah to form the geological conditions that most modern scientists think reveal an ancient earth with evolutionary changes over great expanses of time.

Mark A. Noll, America’s God

I agree with Noll. I applied the term “creationist” to myself until, sometime during law school (where lunchtime bull sessions were far-ranging), I learned that “creationism” had become a term of art for “young-earth creationism” — a position I’m not sure I ever held (though it’s likely I did hold it as an adolescent in an evangelical boarding school).

I wonder whether the young-earth creationists themselves contributed to that narrowing by calling guys like me CINOs (Creationist in Name Only) or something like that.

The Beatitudes, tell us the way blessedness works. I’ll take that over political “strength,” “force,” or “power” any day of the week, not just Sundays.

You can read most of my more impromptu stuff here and here (both of them cathartic venting, especially political) and here (the only social medium I frequent, because people there are quirky, pleasant and real and it has no-algorithms). All should work in your RSS aggregator, like Feedly or Reeder, should you want to make a habit of it.

Annunciation

This is the Feast of Annunciation (hint for low Protestant readers: subtract 9 months from December 25). I was struck by the hymn for the feast: Today is the beginning of our salvation … The Son of God becomes the Son of the Virgin (bold added). The hymn is ancient; life beginning at conception isn’t something a bunch of misogynists dreamed up quickly after Roe v. Wade.

Today, I moved the really spicy stuff elsewhere, but I do provide links.

Writing

Trapped in the bog of my worry and stuckness

I love writing under moonlight. I notice that if anyone remembers a line or two from my books they are often lines written at night, not day. The poetry tends to come at night, the lively turns of phrase. When I’m trapped in the bog of my worry and stuckness (working with metaphors from the story here), I like the notion that when an image presents itself it’s actually the moon shaking her hair free and illuminating my imagination.

Martin Shaw, unwinding from a book tour for Liturgies of the Wild

Screw-it-all freedom

Savage Gods is a crisis memoir: at least, that’s the closest I have ever come to describing it. It’s my weirdest book – my weirdest non-fiction book, anyway – and every time I look at it I have two simultaneous feelings: that I don’t ever want to go through that again; and that I wish I could write another book like this. Of course, there is a relationship between difficult times and good writing, just as there is a relationship between troubled authors and brilliant prose. Not always, of course, but often. There’s a reason so many of us end up divorced alcoholics, if we haven’t died of TB at 45.

Certainly the strangeness of what I was going through when I wrote that book – a spiritual crisis, essentially, which I was only able to fully understand in retrospect – created the form in which it was written. Savage Gods is so uncategorisable that I couldn’t get any of my previous publishers interested in the thing, and a few of them openly hated it. In the end, I found some small, more adventurous outfits to take it up. I now think it’s probably my best non-fiction book, even though I don’t particularly want to read it again, in the same way that Bob Dylan never wants to listen to Blood On The Tracks. But while I don’t want another spiritual crisis, I would like to access the kind of screw-it-all freedom I felt when I wrote like that. I’ve never managed another book like it.

Paul Kingsnorth

Legalia

What do parents have to do with it?

Here, then, are the decisive slam-dunk textual facts that doom Trump’s executive order 14160 in the pending birthright-citizenship case: The words “parent,” “parents,” “mother,” and “father” appear nowhere in the text of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause. Nor do these words appear in the text of the landmark 1952 statutory provision defining birthright citizenship. Yet Trump’s made-up executive order uses the words “mother” and “father” a combined ten times.

Trump and his legal and academic defenders have simply fabricated a welter of detailed parental rules – about parental citizenship, parental legal status, parental domicile, and parental allegiance. Too many critics of Trump and his allies have taken the bait, themselves focusing rather too much attention on parents. To borrow a phrase, they have fallen into the “Parent Trap.”

The text of the 14th Amendment, by contrast, focuses entirely on the baby – on the person born, not the persons giving birth: “All persons born . . . in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

Akhil and Vikram Amar & Samarth Desai, Birthright citizenship: reading the text and sidestepping the parent trap

I’d be more inclined to agree with the phrase “slam-dunk textual facts” were it not for the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

(I’m happy to see the Amar brothers on SCOTUSblog.)

Will potential statesmen ever again step forward?

[Robert] Mueller’s passing should … prompt reflection on what has become of leaders in the legal community who have been widely thought able to transcend political differences, and help to resolve complex, divisive problems beyond the capacities of a polarized political class. Call them legal “notables,” or any other term you choose … After the Watergate scandal, Edward Levi was one such notable, chosen by President Gerald Ford to be the attorney general needed to repair a badly damaged Department of Justice. Levi took the job with the express intention of making “pervasive a certain sense of fairness and responsibility—and adherence to the law—and a clear denial of partisan political use” within DOJ. To a remarkable degree, he succeeded.

In our national politics, individuals possessing this standing across the political divide have begun to disappear from the public scene. Robert Mueller marked one moment in this trajectory of decline. When the acting attorney general in Trump 1.0 named Mueller as a special counsel in the Russia investigation, the press brimmed over with expressions of admiration for his professionalism and character. Democrats and Republicans alike applauded the choice. In fact, it was hard to imagine another choice that would have been as well received.

But the polarization of our politics overcame what Mueller had been appointed to offer …

…

Robert Mueller was committed to a system that would work if those responsible for it, or called to navigate it through difficult times, served with skill, experience, and integrity. We will soon find out whether American politics have, for the foreseeable future, driven devoted public servants like Bob Mueller from the frontlines in an era when they can expect their work to be derided, their motives questioned, and, eventually, their deaths to be celebrated.

Bob Bauer

P.R. is nothing new

A revolutionary age is an age of action; ours is the of advertisement and publicity. Nothing ever happens but there is immediate publicity everywhere. In the present age a rebellion is, of all things, the most unthinkable. Such an expression of strength would seem ridiculous to the calculating intelligence of our times. On the other hand a political virtuoso might bring off a feat almost as remarkable. He might write a manifesto suggesting a general assembly at which people should decide upon a rebellion, and it would be so carefully worded that even the censor would let it pass.

At the meeting itself he would be able to create the impression that his audience had rebelled, after which they would all go quietly home ….

Soren Kierkegaard, The Present Age

Just one of those things

This Thursday, the fifth Thursday in Orthodox Lent, I will be helping to lead a service called the Great Canon of Saint Andrew of Crete combined, on this particular evening, with a complete reading Saint Sophronius’s Life of Saint Mary of Egypt.

That has a secular significance this year: I will be watching the Purdue-Texas men’s basketball tournament game on a YouTubeTV recording, not live, for alas, the game comes on at 7:10 pm and the service, beginning at 6:30, will barely be warming up.

Shorts

This political moment isn’t populists versus elitists; it is, as I’ve written before, like a civil war in a prep school where the sleazy rich kids are taking on the pretentious rich kids. (David Brooks, I Should Have Seen This Coming)
The inexperienced man speaks of problems, which have answers; the experienced man speaks of temptations, which never go away. (Joshua Gibbs, The Experienced Man)
If the claim that Eastern theology tends to be more apophatic whereas Western theology tends to be more kataphatic causes you to lose your peace, you probably shouldn’t be on the internet. (Michael Warren Davis, Don’t Eff the Ineffable)
A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is “merely relative,” is asking you not to believe him. So don’t. (Roger Scruton via J Budziszewski)
Can’t we do better than this, America?, I find myself thinking nearly every day now. And the answer appears to be a firm, unambiguous No, we cannot. (Damon Linker)
Trump’s vision of jurisprudence is: I gave you what you wanted—a seat on the Supreme Court—and now your job is to give me what I want. I don’t take my oath of office seriously, and if you do, I consider that a personal betrayal. (Kevin D. Williamson)
His career is an exemplar of the sinister leading the credulous. (Jamie Kirchick, How Tucker Carlson instigated an inevitable war within MAGA)
The characteristic feature of the loser is to bemoan, in general terms, mankind’s flaws, biases, contradictions, and irrationality-without exploiting them for fun and profit. (Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Bed of Procrustes)
I am only unhappy when I don’t hear the sound of missiles. (Hassan, 32, pseudonymously through Arash Azizi, The Iranians Losing Faith in America)
When Khamenei died, I was happy, but only for a moment—like you get a hit from a drug. … It didn’t even last a day. After that I’ve only felt one thing: fear, fear, fear. (Melika, 21, pseudonymously through Arash Azizi, The Iranians Losing Faith in America)
It is surpassingly strange that a sane person cannot now take the word of the President of the United States for anything, so habitual and incessant is the lying. (Your estranged curator)

Elsewhere in Tipsyworld (i.e., the really spicy stuff)

Wonder

Wonder, in fact, was accepted so instinctively as essential to a human life that in the quarrels and discussions that centered on Christological doctrine there was an argument in favor of the full humanity of Christ which might be called “an argument from wonder“ … If Jesus could “marvel“, Aquinas says, we must suppose the presence of that which is capable of marvel, of the mens humana, the human mind, of the spiritual soul in addition to the presence of the Divine Word and the sensual soul (both of which are, as we have seen, not capable of “wonder“). Only a spiritual capacity for knowledge that does not know everything it knows at once and perfectly is capable of being gradually aware of the deeper and more essential world beyond the sensual, physical world – only the human spirit is capable of wonder.

Josef Pieper, The Philosophical Act (included in the Ignatius Press edition of Leisure: The Basis of Culture.

Note: While moderns tend to reject the divinity of Christ, for the ancients it was much harder to accept His humanity — that God would so sully himself as to take on humanity.

Kind of brings to mind “but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men” (Phil. 2:7), doesn’t it?

* * * * *

You can read most of my more impromptu stuff at here. It should work in your RSS aggregator, like Feedly, should you want to make a habit of it.

I highly recommend blot.im as a crazy-easy alternative to Twitter (if you’re just looking to get your stuff “out there” and not pick fights).

Rediscovering imaginary Mary

It’s Advent, drawing nigh to Christmas, so religion writers turn in desperation for new angles, giving this fan of the old angles an occasional case of the heebie-jeebies.

For instance, there’s something weird and a little creepy about Evangelicals trying to turn the Theotokos into some kind of Che Guevara figure when they stumble onto the continuation of the Magnificat after the first lines they’ve known. Here and here are examples. I first encountered both within the last 24 hours.

Fifty years ago, that sort of thing was scorned by Evangelicals as Liberation Theology, so I guess Evangelicals are on roughly their usual time-lag for adopting fads, turning Mary into a revolutionary “vehicle for Jesus,” on a long Uber drive from Heaven to Bethlehem, with some zesty direct action planned (politics is what it’s all about, right?) after she drops off her fare.

Bah! Humbug! Have these people no capacity for mystery?

GABRIEL

When Eve, in love with her own will,
Denied the will of Love and fell,
She turned the flesh Love knew so well
To knowledge of her love until
Both love and knowledge were of sin.
What her negation wounded, may
Your affirmation heal today;
Love’s will requires your own, that in
The flesh whose love you do not know,
Loves knowledge into flesh may grow.

MARY

My flesh in terror and fire
Rejoices that the Word
Who unites the world out of nothing,
As a pledge of His word to love her
Against her will, and to turn
Her desperate longing to love,
Should ask to wear me,
From now until their wedding day,
For an engagement ring.

GABRIEL

Since Adam, being free to choose,
Chose to imagine he was free
To choose his own necessity,
Lost in his freedom, Man pursues
The shadow of his images:
To-day the Unknown seeks the known;
What I am willed to ask, your own
Will has to answer; child, it lies
Within your power of choosing to
Conceive the Child who chooses you.

W.H. Auden, For the Time Being.

Now that is truly radical.

* * *

While we’re on a Christmas theme, let me praise this little benediction snippet, attributed to the Church of Ireland and set to glorious, sappy music by Philip W.J. Stopford:

May Christ, who by His incarnation gathered into one all things earthly, all things heavenly, … fill you with joy and peace.

We Tenors get to sing that, and it usually kind of chokes me up.

* * * * *

Follow me on Micro.blog, too, where I blog tweet-like shorter items and … well, it’s evolving. Or, if you prefer, those micro.blog items also appear now at microblog.intellectualoid.com.