Austin Hall Library

Regensburg Comes To Texas

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 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.

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.

Plowing in Hope

Over the years, having been introduced to the fine works of the "Southern Agrarians", Richard M. Weaver, Wendell Berry, Victor Hanson, and others, I have arrived at a greater appreciation of the connection between working the land with one's own hands and the health of body and soul.

But, in addition to the writings of confirmed agrarians, the Christian faith has a long tradition of thoughtful scholarship on this very subject. A comment to the previous post ("Did I Accomplish Anything Significant Today"), by "Eric", triggered my memory in this regard. Eric links to a reflection he wrote not long ago that expresses ideas similar to my own in the previous post. Eric's post is on a site by the name of Sensus Divinitatis Publishing, with which I was perviously unfamiliar, but the Latin phrase sensus divinitatis--"sense of divinity"--refers to a deep-seated moral awareness or sense of God. The Protestant John Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, called it "natural instinct, an awareness of divinity", and the Catholic St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, referred to it as "a law" that the Creator has "written on the tablets of the heart". 

I recommend reading Eric's thoughtful reflection, not because it is similar to my own post, but because he touches briefly on a modern expression of Protestant thought on human culture and work. He mentions David Hegeman's Plowing in Hope:Towards a Biblical Theology of Culture, which I read some time ago. While I do recall differing with a few of Hegeman's conclusions (e.g, his rejection of the monastic ideal of celibacy reflects a common misunderstanding), I thought his work was the best modern expression of Protestant thought I had read on this subject (Henry Van Til's The Calvinistic Concept of Culture is also an insightful modern contribution from the Protestant Reformed tradition). Hegeman's Plowing in Hope is a significant contribution to the subject faithful to the tradition of John Calvin, Groen van Prinsterer, Abraham Kuyper, and others of the Reformed tradition. 

Kuyper (a Dutch philosopher, theologian, and politician) and Pope Leo XIII were contemporaries and both approached subjects like labor, poverty, wealth, class, and the state as fundamentally theological issues. Kuyper was strongly influenced by a German Catholic philosopher by the name of Franz Xaver von Baader, who emphasized that social power is not exercised by the individual human person, nor by an aggregate of individuals, but rather when humans form themselves into social organizations like family, church, or political groups. Kuyper went on to make a profound impact in the Netherlands and beyond (particularly on the American Founding Fathers) by formulating the concept of "sphere sovereignty", which advanced the idea that every social institution is "sovereign in its own sphere". At about the same time, Leo XIII was concretizing the similar Catholic concept known as "subsidiarity" (in his famous encyclical Rerum Novarum).

While the Catholic and Calvinistic traditions do not lead to the same socio-political conclusions, both do lead to the conclusion that the concept of culture is rooted in theological considerations. Man, created in the image of God, is mandated to forge his place in the world by the work of his own mind and hands, in conformity to the law "written on his heart". And the result is "culture". Man needs to create gardens out of jungles, because by doing so he fulfills, in part, his cultural mandate and witnesses, in part, to what it means to be human. We plow in hope that one day the creation we work with our minds and hands, though now blemished and overrun with thistles--like our souls, will once again be a garden.

Christopher Dawson: A Guide to Restating the Obvious

Christopher Dawson, in Christianity and the New Age, insightfully notes: “For centuries a civilization will follow the same path, worshipping the same gods, cherishing the same ideals, acknowledging the same moral and intellectual standards. And then all at once a change will come, the springs of the old life run dry, and men suddenly awake to a new world, in which the ruling principles of the former age seem to lose their validity and to become inapplicable or meaningless.”

Dawson observed that this occurred during the time of the Roman Empire, “when the ancient world, which had lived for centuries on the inherited capital of the Hellenistic culture, seemed suddenly to come to the end of its resources and to realize its need of something entirely new.”

It happened most recently when the old capital of the modern era was exhausted in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but, unfortunately, when the modern age ended, there was nothing waiting to take its place. Referred to by cultural observers as the postmodern period, our current age is rooted in skepticism and void of any unifying principles, except, perhaps, an unquestioned faith in man. Gene E. Veith, Jr. has remarked, “Postmodernism assumes that there is no objective truth, that moral values are relative, and that reality is socially constructed by a host of diverse communities.”

 

In the absence of unifying first principles, one is at a loss to effectively communicate with those who embrace the reigning plausibility structures. Perhaps, as George Orwell observed, “We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”  

 

I have found the the works of Christopher Dawson to be among the most helpful in the formation or clarification of the obvious. Not long ago, I read a very fine intellectual biography on Dawson by Bradley J. Birzer, titled, Sanctifying the World: The Augustinian Life and Mind of Christopher Dawson. It is a great place to begin an appreciation for the work produced by this extraordinary mind. 

Christianity and the Classical Tradition

If there had been no Judeo-Christian worldview, the barbarians would still have invaded the classical world and sacked the City of Rome. Everything that world achieved could have been swept away by the barbarian hordes—but it was not. The fact that it was not—that, instead, many of its greatest achievements were preserved for later generations—was because the great Christian thinkers of the first four centuries had developed a way of thinking that could safeguard what was priceless in the classical tradition.

 

Read Charles N. Cochrane's Christianity and Classical Culture: A Study of Thought and Action from Augustus to Augustine.

Humaneness is Only a Habit

Thinking again of the importance of good moral training, I am reminded of the words of Dostoevsky: "humaneness is only a habit, a product of civilization. It may completely disappear."

The barbarities of modern history provide grim attestations to civilization's vulnerability to the collapse of moral order: the Holocaust, the Killing Fields, the Gulag, the remorseless destruction of our species while still in the womb.

The modern age, which counts nothing above self fulfillment of the individual as sacred, is in decay. Curiously, and in contrast, the vital tradition and common sense of the past is healthy and enriching. In the words of Samuel Johnson, "men more frequently require to be reminded than informed," and, as C.S. Lewis noted, what they need to be reminded of is the "old, platitudinous, universal moral law."

Jesus Loves Me But Does He Love My Tattoos?

I am a firm believer in the importance of symbols, the value and validity of which depends upon the meaning intended and conveyed. Having said that, I admit to experiencing a certain "creepiness" at the current explosion in religious tattoos among the young. A recent study indicates, for instance, that 44 percent of the tattoos displayed by Baylor University (a Baptist institution) students are religious in nature.

An interesting article published on "Busted Halo", an online magazine, discusses what the author describes as "a growing trend" in religious tattoos. For a Jewish perspective see Tattooed Jews on the same site, and for one Catholic's personal perspective see The Illustrated Body of Christ?.

No doubt some well-intended individuals mean to convey a serious piety when they choose and display religious tattoo designs. It seems to me, however, that even when accompanied by an upright and religious intention, certain forms or means of display, by their nature, tend to convey impressions that contravene sincerely devout intentions. For example, the display of the corpus on a cross behind an altar, or from a chain around the neck of the pious faithful, tends to convey a symbolic message different from the display of the same corpus and cross on a person's body part. One display tends to convey a reverent intention (if not accompanied by contravening indicators), while the other display tends to convey an irreverent intention (despite accompanying pious words and the best of intentions).

Admittedly, my reasoning carries no authority on this matter, and others may not find it compelling. Even I hold my opinion lightly when the good intentions of people are at stake and worthy of respect.

The Importance of Symbols

At first, I viewed modern man's lack of interest in serious reading as a harmless, albeit unfortunate, generational characteristic. But, ironically, with the exploding growth of the "new media", which relies almost exclusively on images (and simple script), I began to notice a corresponding loss of interest in the meaning and importance of symbols. It appears that the current generation is interested in visual images--as long as the images convey no meaning.

I see this everywhere, and even now I am reminded of Alice Thomas Ellis's story of a friend who went into a jewelry shop to purchase a christening gift for her godchild. The jeweler, on hearing that she was searching for a small cross on a chain, asked, "Do you want a plain cross or the one with the little man on it?"  

I am afraid that the societal de-emphasis on important symbols, combined with the loss of interest in serious reading (and the necessary education for it), has resulted in ignorance of even the basic tenets of Christianity and the meteoric rise in casual blasphemy. It is not that Christian symbols are no longer visible in society. Crosses are an item of costume jewelry, commonly hanging from pierced ears (and other body parts), and the necks of scores of people who have no apparent interest in Christian faith. And anyone who believes Christian symbols are no longer visible in public hasn't been anywhere that Harley Davidson bikers are present, where tattooed symbols cover more parts of the human anatomy than does clothing. 

The problem is not that symbols are no longer present in society. It is that the reverence that was once accorded the symbols has been lost. It is not even the gaudy and meaningless vulgarity with which Christian symbols are employed today that is most troublesome. It is the lack of awareness and the absence of any true meaning intended that seems to me to be most culturally telling fact today.

For those who think we have lost little in the loss of reverence for Christian symbols, how then do you intend to capture the attention of a generation with no initial interest in written or spoken propositions? What is at stake in the loss of the meaning of, and reverence for, symbols is the Christian claim that we can touch the truth of our salvation. When that truth is distorted anything can happen.

I suppose that I should be encouraged that Christian symbols are so prevalent in society these days--wherever they might be found--whether meaningful or not to those who display them. But, when I see a crucifix resting in the ample cleavage of a buxom blond waitress sporting a "Born to be Wild" tattoo over her heart, I am quite simply unable to muster any encouragement at the future prospects for our culture. 

Scott-King's Perspective on Modernity

Evelyn Waugh's, Scott-King's Modern Europe, which I mention here, is a very short book, written in an entirely light tone. But, it manifests a clear intention.

Scott-King's concluding comment that his commitment to the classics is "the most long-sighted view it is possible to take" is intended as a serious perspective. The reader is meant to infer from this short work that the modern world is unmistakably disordered, that "progress" is actually devolution, and that the modern word is quite likely to dash itself against the rocks in the future. Thus, it is a purposeless effort to come to terms with it, much less to prepare oneself to "fit" within it.

Scott-King is a conservative, that is, a person who refuses to believe that the unending quest for progress is movement in the right direction. In fact, that unexamined and unprincipled progress is quite likely the path to cultural insanity. It is Scott-King's perspective that a classical education provides the prophylactic to insanity, and affords an opportunity to cling to the few remaining moral principles in the chaos that is shortly to come. 

The Credo of Our Age

James V. Schall made an insightful observation in an essay I read this morning on G.K. Chesterton that was originally presented at the Meeting of the American Chesterton Society, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, Minnesota, in June 2005.

Schall notes that it is characteristic of our more recent times that we do not really debate anything, especially the truth of anything. He says that we avoid real debate for fear that something actually might be true and therefore put demands on our minds, polities, and morals to change our ways. Thus, we only "tolerate" things.

Schall goes on to say that debate that presupposes that truth exists and is worthy of pursuit is itself a dangerous proposition, particularly politically. Therefore, our "debates" are power struggles and number countings, not attentive and logical examinations of evidence to arrive at true conclusions and reject the untrue propositions. We don't want to actually change people's minds. We only want to understand them and let them remain as they are. To change them is to undermine the very premise of respect and tolerance.

In contrast to this recent view, Schall presents the older notion of "respect" for ideas that meant doing a person the honor of seeking to correct him if he was wrong. This came from the belief that the greatest service one man could give another was to lead him to the truth--by the route in which truth is known, that is, through argument and evidence, in courtesy and conversation.

In its original sense, tolerance meant allowing other opinions to be accurately heard without intimidation, threats, or interference. Today it means the intolerable idea of not allowing them to be heard on the basis of the evidence for them. Today tolerance means that nothing is intolerable but the truth.

A Remarkable and Obscure Philosophy

I recently returned to the land of my birth (Texas) only to find that the philosophical air we breathed when I was young (an unarticulated Southern Agrarianism) has been tainted by a postmodern gnostic consciousness. And there is nothing so oddly disturbing as a gnostic Texan.

It is now necessary in Texas, like elsewhere, to consciously familiarize oneself with a remarkable but obscure philosophy of the way the world ought to be. In various posts, I previously introduced readers to a few interesting works and a fine historian. In this post, I recommend the work of another historian--Eugene D. Genovese. As an award-winning once-Marxist historian, he carefully and fairly analyzed the history of conservatism in the South, and ultimately embraced the traditional principles underlying that philosophy. He and his wife (Elizabeth Fox-Genovese), who passed away in 2007, were for many years two of the most influential voices in academia (together they founded the journal Marxist Perspectives in the late 1970's).

I recommend Eugene Genovese's The Southern Tradition: The Achievement and Limitations of an American Conservatism as the book to read for an outline of the distinctive characteristics of Southern conservatism. I have referred to it as a "philosophy", but Genovese does not present a well-defined philosophy (perhaps there is none). Instead, he presents the Southern Tradition, despite its limitations, as offering insights that could inform an effort at defining a sound philosophical framework. And what he outlines is not mindless modern day Limbaugh neoconservatism, or heartless democratic capitalism. Read the book for a stimulating treatment of a tradition that deserves careful attention in an era that desperately needs it.

Follow Genovese with a reading of I'll Take My Stand: The South and the Agrarian Tradition by 12 Southerners, which is a collection of essays in support of Southern Agrarian ideas that came from an early twentieth century movement centered at Vanderbilt University. The essays were written by some of the greatest American literary minds of the last century,and they were devastating and provocatively prophetic in their analysis of modern/postmodern culture. Not everything they say is commendable, but one could do much worse these days than practicing the sustainability and cultural principles of the Southern Agrarians. And they were before their time in noting where modern/postmodern thought would take us. By the way, I recommend the version with the Introduction by Louis D. Rubin, Jr., rather than the newer version with an Introduction by Susan V. Donaldson, who herself seems to exhibit some of the ideas the Southern Agrarians tried to warn us against.

Finally, familiarize yourself with the work of Richard M. Weaver by reading his energizing Ideas Have Consequences. Better yet, read it several times. It is tightly packed with thought-provoking analysis of what ails modern society. Read Weaver, Genovese, and the Southern Agrarians, along with Latin, as early and as often as possible, and one is likely to become an educated person, regardless of the region of the country in which one resides--even if it's the Northeast.