Austin Hall Library

Christians Beware of Political Regimes

What does a religion whose leader is a Suffering Servant, God in flesh, redeemer of man's self-centered sinfulness by an agonizing death on a common cross, have to do with partisan politics? He respected the reigning regime but embraced no political structure; he advocated no political or social revolution, nor any plan for a new social order on earth; he said nothing about war, and he took up no social cause--not even slavery.

Instead, he called for the establishment of justice and peace through the conversion of minds and souls; he called for followers who would leave behind everything else, give no thought to status, have no worry for even the necessities of life, embrace a life of of suffering, and follow him wherever he might lead.

How was it that a religion so austere and demanding, so contemptuous of worldly goods and status, so bent on service and chastity--so impractical--converted the ancient world? As Russell Kirk noted, one cause of the success of Christianity "was that its appeal, unconnected with political systems, became universal."

Beware then of any connection with a particular political system, which by its nature destroys the universal appeal and message of the Christian faith. To identify Christian causes with any political party is to undermine evangelization.

What Makes Any Act Good or Evil?

Recently I had a brief but fascinating discussion with someone who made me reflect on the question in the title of this post. The answer to the question above depends on: (1) the object chosen; (2) the end in view or the intention; and (3) the circumstances of the action.

The first element refers to the object chosen by the will. For example, to choose to give money to a poor beggar is a good object. The second element highlights the fact that the intention with which a person performs an act is distinct from the object chosen by the will. The same object can be chosen with a good or bad intention. For example, I can choose to give money to a poor beggar to relieve his suffering, or I can choose to give money in order to be publicly praised for my act. The former is good; the latter is evil. A bad intention can make an act bad that is in itself good. But, a good intention can never make an intrinsically evil act good. The third element--the circumstances of an act--do not change the nature of an act from bad to good or vice versa, but they can contribute to increasing or decreasing the essential good or evil of a human act. For example, if I steal money from a poor beggar who has no food, it is worse that stealing money from a rich person (cf. "Woe to those who cause little ones to stumble"). Circumstances can also either diminish or increase one's responsibility for an act. For example, extreme pain sometimes leads a person to say or do things he would not otherwise say or do if his will had not been overridden in some measure by suffering. 

Any one of the above elements alone is enough to make an act evil, but one alone is not enough to make it good. All three are necessary to make any act good. The right thing must be done, for the right reason, in the right way.

We often oversimplify or overemphasize one element or another and downplay the others to our detriment. If we overemphasize the objective act, we may end in a form of legalism. If we overemphasize the intention, we may end in a form of subjectivism. If we overemphasize changing circumstances, we may end in a form of relativism. 

This is all unoriginal and reasonably simple moral reasoning, requiring no great intelligence to practice. But, I never cease to be stunned at the virtual absence of moral reasoning among moderns. More often than not, I find that most cannot maintain focus long enough to think their way through the process above. Our educational system no longer even offers the tools necessary (i.e., reading, writing, thinking) for such an exercise. And think of the results--the almost universal inability to discern good acts from bad acts. No wonder there is little difference these days between Democrats and Republicans.

Life is Like the Book of Genesis

We always get what we choose in life.

As the years have passed, I have come to agree with James Schall, that "all of our lives when we come to recount them, are themselves a retelling of this same story [the story of the Book of Genesis], the story of what we choose, the story of whether we ultimately choose what is or ourselves to be the central event in our existence."

It is sometimes hard to grasp that we have a nature--an "inner configuration", as Schall calls it--that is given us. When we exercise our wills to act according to what we are, we get what we choose and life is well ordered. As St. Augustine noted, we have "restless hearts", that cannot find relief until they rest in ultimate reality.

If, however, presupposing only ourselves, we exercise our wills to act according to our own desires, we still get what we choose, but, in the end, our lives are disordered. Nonetheless, things work out according to our heart's desire. As Aslan maintains in The Magician's Nephew, "All get what they want: they do not always like it."  

A Cat Comes to the Farm

I have never liked cats--then, she appeared recently out of nowhere, a scrawny, crying, clinging, pitiable cat-infant. I am advised that she is a Calico cat, which I am also advised is not a breed of cat, but a description of the coat color--a mixture of tortoiseshell fur (black and orange) and white fur.

What was I to do? So young, and so undernourished, she would not have lasted long on her own. She seemed to know it, and she seemed desperately to want me to know it. I could have tolerated her suffering on the theory that she has no soul, but such a theory could not mean that she felt no pain. If, on the other hand, it only means that, as a lower animal, she has no moral responsibilities or immortality, then it seemed to make my tolerating her suffering even harder to justify than human suffering. Unlike humans, she couldn't deserve her suffering, profit morally from the discipline suffering induces, or be compensated with happiness in the next life. Pain and suffering without guilt or fruit is severe, desperately frightening, and ultimately unbearable, whether one is a lower or a higher animal.

In the end, I decided not to get too carried away with the state of a kitten's immaterial self (if it has one). As C.S. Lewis thought, God may yet do something for such innocents in the new heaven and new earth to come. Rather, I decided that whether I tolerated a helpless kitten's suffering or not, when it was within my power to alleviate it, said too much about my own immaterial self for me to conveniently ignore. So, she adopted me. Her name is Bella.

No One Sees God

Michael Novak's latest book, No One Sees God: The Dark Night of Atheists and Unbelievers, is a lucid, erudite, and moving exploration of what can be known about God by reason alone. Thus, its meaning and significance are sure to be lost on most people who read it, because, unfortunately, most people today are neither lucid, erudite, nor reasonable. It is nonetheless a fine book--not intended as a defense of Christianity, but as a dialogue about what cannot not be known, but is seldom contemplated and reflected upon.

While Novak's book is not a book about Christianity or religion per se, it seems to me to be highly relevant to the subject of religious unbelief. There are several forms of such unbelief. There is the sincere person who, though he has no knowledge of revealed Trinitarian religion, he nonetheless tries to pursue truth and goodness as best he can in his own life. Revelation itself seems to indicate that this form of unbelief is not culpable (e.g., Romans 2:14). Then there is the unbelief of the religiously indifferent person. This person has thought of God, is aware of his existence, and knows what that knowledge requires, but he indifferently goes about his life with no reference to God. Then, there is the deliberate rejection of God and his revelation--an opposition to God's very existence. The latter two forms of unbelief are culpable.

Novak's book is an attempt to engage in charitable dialogue those who hold the first form of unbelief noted above--the scores of people who do not identify themselves as atheists or agnostics, and who cannot not know what has been written on their hearts. And, contemplation of, and reflection on, what is deep within, has never been needed more than it is today. 

The Difference Between Prostitution and Wisdom

For a while, I was a professor--the professional employee of a university that hired me to sell my mind for money, the way a prostitute sells her body.

At least that is what Socrates would have thought. He was not one of the Sophists; he never took a fee for his teaching. He had nothing to sell. He claimed even to have no wisdom, only to seek it.

The Sophists of Socrates' time were paid expensive tuition by wealthy Athenian parents to fill the minds of their children, without examining the product they were buying. Socrates offered the opposite service--to take out ideas rather than to put them in. Students' minds were filled with prejudices, error, fallacies, and confusion. And they emerged from a conversation with Socrates poorer, not richer, in opinions.

For the source of this idea and an overview of Socrates' thought and approach see Peter Kreeft's small but excellent book Philosophy 101 by Socrates: An Introduction to Philosophy Via Plato's Apology.