« June 2009 | Main | August 2009 »
So it is with moral truth. Just as one who is richly habituated and educated to appreciate beautiful music is delighted by a magnificent symphony, so does one who loves beauty and goodness thrill to the discovery of truth. As Dubay says, "love of the Good brings one to a love of the Truth."
Today's Gospel reading is Matthew 13:31-35, which reduces to writing Jesus' teaching to his disciples on how the world is transformed into the kingdom of heaven. The kingdom "is like a mustard seed" that someone sows in a field, which starts small "and becomes a tree", and "like yeast that a woman took and mixed in with three measures of flour until all of it was leavened".
So it is with our own tiny efforts to speak and live the Gospel wherever we find ourselves. The effects take time, but slowly, perhaps imperceptibly at first, growth like nature out of control exceeds our imaginings. It is happening now, and has been for quite some time. It will continue unabated to the end of the age as earthly regimes come and go. "Let anyone with ears listen!"
At the recommendation of a friend, I purchased Universalis over the weekend and downloaded it to my iPhone and to my PC. It is a well-designed application for praying the Liturgy of the Hours--the official body of daily prayers prescribed by the Catholic Church to be recited at the canonical hours. Christians from the Western and Eastern traditions (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican) celebrate the Liturgy of the Hours under various names. And, to my mild surprise, numerous Protestants from a variety of backgrounds other than Anglican appear to be using the Universalis application, as evidenced by comment threads I have seen.
For those interested in expanding and deepening their prayer lives, and reading and praying through the Holy Scriptures as it has been done since ancient times, I highly recommend the Liturgy of the Hours. And, now, with the creation of Universalis, one doesn't have to purchase multiple prayer books and master a complex system of moving from one text to another.
However imperfectly practiced, the conviction that the Christian faith demands an effort to fight personal sin and to develop virtues such as kindness, patience, truth-telling, and chastity must be developed, acted upon, and sustained. And this does not come about through some vague notion of "spirituality", theoretical discussions of living the Christian life, or even solely the vital discipline of reading Holy Scripture. If one wants to live united with Christ, one must die to all that stands in the way of that unity. I had occasion last week, in preparation to teach a class in my home, to return to one of the classics in ascetical theology, Spiritual Combat, by Lorenzo Scupoli (1530-1610). It is a short, straightforward, and uncompromising statement of the theory and practice of the ascetical life. It is my favorite book on the subject. The book is not complex, but it is highly condensed, and it presupposes a theological and moral formation that is rare today. Therefore, I always recommend that it be read with Jonathan Robinson's excellent, Spiritual Combat Revisited, which sets forth an analysis of the structure and main arguments of Scupoli's powerful book. Together, these two books provide the foundation to conquer the divided heart. Don't be misled by the contemptuous way in which the term "asceticism" is sometimes used by Whether known by the name "asceticism" or "spiritual combat", the struggle to overcome the deep division in our nature and to bring our lives into harmony with the demands of our faith is an essential element of Christianity. As Jonathan Robinson notes, "This effort involves a struggle with ourselves because we are divided creatures; we are pulled toward what is good, and we lean to what is evil."
moderns. The word asceticism comes from the Greek askesis and means practice, bodily exercise, and more specifically, athletic training. Early Christians adopted the word to signify the practice of spiritual exercises performed for the purpose of overcoming sin and acquiring the habits of virtue. As Robinson makes clear, at the heart of asceticism is the understanding that we are born in sin; we are saved by Christ; we must live in hope; and we can do no good without God's grace.
Richard M. Weaver and M.E. Bradford forcefully argued that since the starting point for individuals and groups can never be equal, the illusion of equality of opportunity must result in a campaign for equality of outcome and for the consolidation of government power in the hands of those committed to social leveling. Bradford stated, "Not religion but the cult of equality is the 'opiate' of the masses in today's world--part of the larger and older passion for uniformity or freedom from distinction." As Bradford noted, equality as a moral or political imperative, pursued as an end in itself ("Equality, with the capital 'E'") is destructive of liberty. Here is where I see most glaringly the practical problem with the modern fascination for "Equality with a capital 'E'": How does one convince people who are raised on and formed by egalitarian beliefs to defer to authority? The answer, I believe, is that it cannot be done. And, if that is true, the political consequences of "Equality with a capital 'E'", will eventually be devastating, for the only means of controlling radicalized egalitarianism is the absolutism of the state. The state will regulate everything; the individual will be important only through the state, and the Declaration of Independence will be turned on its head. Is it possible that we have transformed the principle of equality so powerfully set forth in the Declaration of Independence to little more than a thoughtless cultural egalitarianism?
On Monday evening of next week, a good friend will join me in Texas and we will take a few days to relax, catch up on discussions, and study together James V. Schall's, The Regensburg Lecture. My friend and I read the lecture and the book when it was released, but we are reading it again in preparation for our visit in Texas. On September 12, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI gave his Regensburg lecture that sparked Muslim fury by quoting the Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Palaeologus, as saying (in the lecture's English translation): "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." Although Benedict XVI noted in his lecture, regarding Manuel's statement, that it contained "a brusqueness that we find unacceptable", it was too late. The media pounced on the statement and reported that the pope denounced the Qur'an as "evil and inhuman". Violent demonstrations against the Catholic Church by Muslims in several countries followed soon thereafter. I have previously posted (here and here) my appreciation for Schall's analysis of Benedict XVI's bold and insightful lecture. It is my belief that the pope's Regensburg lecture is a work of such philosophical depth and importance to Western civilization, that its significance is likely to be completely missed by most moderns. Because that is what we moderns do--overlook the truly important things in life. The significance of the subject matter addressed in the lecture (i.e., the relationship between faith and It was at that point that I began to think of the subject of faith and reason, with the related subject of nominalism/voluntarism, as the pivotal issues in any meaningful reform of modern culture. And, then, in 2006, came Benedict XVI at Regensburg, opening my eyes to the historic struggle behind these issues, as well as their centrality to the survival of the West, and, perhaps, the world. The Regensburg Lecture is a challenging read if one doesn't have a basic familiarity with the history and terms and concepts discussed. It is particularly challenging if one comes from a background in which one has been formed in philosophical nominalism and theological voluntarism. Even recognizing it in oneself will be almost imposssible under such circumstances. But, for those who persevere, perhaps again and again, clarity may come. And then the real work begins.
reason, philosophical nominalism/theological voluntarism) was driven home to me when I was a law professor where most of my students were Christians. Almost without exception, the very fine students approached the study of law sharing three characteristics: (1) an inability to articulate any meaningful relationship between faith and reason; (2) an unfamiliarity with, and occasionally an opposition to, the natural law tradition; and (3) a commitment to philosophical nominalism and theological voluntarism (even though unfamiliar with the terms). Thus, while deeply interested in making a positive impact on modern culture, the students were lacking in the fundamental grounding necessary even to effectively communicate with modern culture. Moreover, and distressingly, the students came to study from backgrounds philosophically and theologically opposed to the very training necessary for their success. Although desirous of engaging and positively impacting the culture, the students were actually formed in such a way as to assure their marginalization and irrelevancy to the culture they so wanted to reform.
An on-line friend was kind enough to forward me a courtesy copy of a book recently written by the pastor of his church. Written by Benjamin W. Miller, The Kingdom Has Drawn Near, is a treatment of the biblical concept of the Kingdom of God, which was originally delivered to parishioners in the form of four sermons preached on consecutive Sundays in 2008. It is a short book, divided into four chapters, and presented from the perspective of classical Trinitarian orthodoxy, particularly as articulated by the Continental Reformed tradition. While the author is admittedly Calvinist, the influences of numerous thinkers from the Reformed tradition are evident throughout (e.g., Kuyper, Vos, et al.). In short, The Kingdom Has Drawn Near, is a winsome and articulate scriptural defense of the idea that the Kingdom of God referred to in the Bible is a present reality. The contrary idea (e.g., that the kingdom is yet future) is unique in the Christian tradition to Protestantism, and Miller does a fine job of disputing that idea. Some parts of the book will be appreciated and embraced only by those of Calvinist conviction, but the author's deep respect for the authority of the Bible, careful analytical approach, and classical Trinitarian orthodoxy makes The Kingdom Has Drawn Near a devotional work worthy of serious consideration. It is available directly from Sensus Divinitatis Publishing.
At some level, they all appear to be eugenicists. Eugenics is the belief in the improvement of the qualities of the human species by preventing reproduction by persons having genetic traits presumed undesirable. The philosophy behind eugenics has produced countless human rights violations through the ages, not the least of which is the Jewish Holocaust. If it is hard to believe that a sitting Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court could tacitly, or otherwise, embrace such an opinion, one need look no further than last Sunday's New York Times magazine. A good friend forwarded me today this informative link that reveals the frightening connection alluded to above. Justice Ginsburg's brazen statement, in addition to disclosing a startling lack of self-awareness, underscores the fact that it is not a jurist's treatment of the text of a statute or constitution that makes them dangerous or benign; it is their worldview.
I have noted to students and others, that the loss of interest by the average person in reading and thinking about propositions, combined with a meteoric rise in entertainment-oriented visual stimulants, and modern media wedded to a materialist worldview, will soon lead to a thoughtless society--among other lamentable things. I recommend for the consideration of those who read this post, the text of an address recently delivered by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, of the the Archdiocese of Denver. The address may be found here, and it is a perspective worthy of consideration by every thinking person, regardless of religious tradition, or the absence thereof. It is an insightful look at what should be common knowledge, but isn't. It is also a warning, of sorts, of the dangers of unregulated prejudice and bias, protected by the First Amendment. It will likely come as no surprise to those who know me, that, while I highly value the First Amendment, I have little appreciation for the modern media.
In addition to other reading, I have tried to gain a shallow understanding of the Human Genome Project. Some may recall that on June 26, 2000, a special press conference was held at the White House, during which the publication of the human genome was announced. In short, the human genome is made up of deoxyribonucleic acid, more popularly known as DNA, and DNA encodes a sequence of chemical molecules that can be represented by four letters: G,A,C, and T. A genome, then, is the sequence of molecules that specifies the information necessary to build a specific organism, and the human genome (published in 2000) is made up of three billion letters--a sequence of G,A,T,C. I read today that there was a study done several years ago that compared the Y chromosomes (possessed only by men and responsible for determining sex in our species) of men scattered throughout the planet. The study revealed that all of the men on the planet are descended from a single man (M.F. Hammer. "A Recent Common Ancestry for Human Y Chromosomes." Nature. November 23, 1995). This original "Y chromosomal Adam" is thought to have lived in East Africa about 60,000 to 90,000 years ago. In a parallel study on the piece of DNA in every human being called the mitochondrial genome (inherited from our mothers), scientists discovered that every single human being is descended from one woman, who has been called "Mitochondrial Eve" (R.L. Cann, et al. "Mitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution." Nature. January 1, 1987). She is thought to have lived in the Eastern part of Africa some 100,000 years ago. The difficulty of dating aside, genomic science has made some captivating discoveries, with more certain to come in the future. Quite out of reading character for me, I have been following the footnote trail for a couple of weeks and it has taken me into the sphere of biology. I suspect the fascination will soon end, but it is positively absorbing for now.
I admit to being puzzled at people who refuse to learn from those with whom they disagree. Since refusal to learn goes hand-in-hand with refusal to engage, these people reject ideas they have not even heard from their sources. Thus, they reject Aristotle's (or another such thinker's) thought, not because they have read, contemplated, reflected, understood, and been unpersuaded. Rather, they reject it because, having heard negative references, they presume it to be without value and, thus, do not engage his thought at all. A.G. Sertillanges wrote that it is an essential condition for profiting by our reading that we "tend always to reconcile our authors instead of setting one against another." His point was not that critical analysis has no place, particularly in an academic context. But, when the aim is formation of the intellect, or personal profit from reading and study, a critical spirit is a hindrance to learning. As Sertillanges notes, in such situations, it is not the thoughts, but the truths, that interest us. If truth is a whole (and it is), it is not the disagreements we have with thinkers that should occupy us; it is the agreement any thinker (writer) has with reality that is our search. As Sertillanges says, "the fruitful research is to look for points of contact." So, it is quite possible that although an Aristotelian, one may lean toward Plato in some things, just as it is possible that, without being an Augustinian, a Thomist might feed his mind constantly on the truths found in Augustine. One might even see Descartes as a corrupter of epistemology (as I do), and yet profit from some aspects of truth found in his writings (as I have). The person who wants to acquire from authors, not fodder for derision, but truth and reflection, must bring to his reading a spirit of conciliation as well as a grasp of the universal.
