Category: Uncategorized

Hugo Schwyzer says:

To be honest, one of the reasons I’m a socialist is because I do think that virtue sometimes needs to be compelled by an external source. Left to my own devices, despite my faith, I will choose expensive clothes and trips over giving money to the poor. I do give a great deal to charity (to be honest, I tithe on my net income, not my gross), but I often think more good could be done if the money were taken from me involuntarily. Come the revolution, no ankle boots for me. (My conservative readers are really frothing now, aren’t they?)

Now, kudos to him for admitting where he falls short, and, heaven knows that I have a looong way to go in surrendering back to the Good Lord my self, my time, and my possessions. But the early church, or so we’re told, didn’t lobby Caesar for better welfare programs, rather they took matters into their own hands:

All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. (Acts 2: 44-45)



All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need. (Acts 4: 32-35)

Please note that I’m not arguing against all government redistribution of wealth. I think Christian tradition clearly teaches that the civil authorities can set limits to the right of private property in the interest of the common good. Aquinas and Luther, just to pick a couple of heavyweights, both taught that the rich had an obligation to share with the poor, and that this is a matter of justice, not just charity.

Still, Christians believe that the church, not the state, is where God’s new life is making its presence felt. As John Howard Yoder argued, the church is an “aftertaste of God’s loving triumph on the cross and foretaste of His ultimate loving triumph in His kingdom”- a community that shows the world that a different way is possible. Who can doubt that Christians would have vastly more credibility in the modern world if we practiced the kind of radical discipleship that we see in the New Testament?

Here’s an interesting piece from Chris Armstrong in Christianity Today that uses the absurd “reality” show Amish in the City as a jumping off point to discuss how the lifestyle of the Old Order Amish offers a telling critique of many aspects of modern life, even – perhaps especially – among Christians.

The Amish, according to Armstrong, are a kind of relic of the Middle Ages who continue to embody many of the habits of medieval life. “The Amish,” he writes, “help us to see that, as the World War-era visionaries J. R. R. Tolkien, G. K. Chesterton, and C. S. Lewis saw and taught us to see, the dismantling of the medieval world by Enlightened, capitalist, and eventually industrializing hands was by no means ‘all good.’”

Precisely what good aspects of medieval life have we lost? Armstrong notes that the Amish have a relational and communal rather than sentimental and individualistic understanding of love. They emphasize acts of obedience over doctrinal correctness. They value the tried and true over the latest fad and the mentality of “bigger, faster, newer.” And they display and gentleness and reserve that stands in stark contrast to mainstream society’s penchant for aggressive hyper-emotionalism and exhibitionism.

While I think there’s much that’s right here, I do think it’s tempting to succumb to a “grass is greener” mentality and underestimate the real blessings of modernity. Note, for one, that people who write admiring profiles of the Amish seldom elect to join up! As much as we talk of wanting to simplify, simplify, simplify, most of us like our modern conveniences. And “community” may be the buzzword of the moment, but how many of us would really want to subject ourselves to the kind of scrutiny and discipline that living in a tight-knit religious community would involve?

This is illustrated by the movie The Village, which I saw this weekend. Without giving too much away, the action of the movie revolves around the choices the characters must make between their idyllic isolated (and Amish-like) existence, and the benefits (and dangers) of the outside world. And it’s by no means clear which is preferable. Each has its costs and benefits.

Secondly, it’s a fact, and a paradoxical one, that groups like the Amish seem best able to flourish in the heart of that engine of freedom and modernity, the good ol’ US of A. In late-medieval Europe, let’s not forget, the forbears of the Amish were persecuted for their distinctive way of life. Groups like the early Anabaptists represented cracks in the monolithic culture of Catholic Europe, and were perceived as a threat. The more flexible, easy-going cutlture of decadent capitalist America is happy to leave them to their devices for the most part.

Surely the Amish have had their identity affected and shaped in their encounter with modernity. They’ve had to defend their way of life against the encroachments of state and economy, and that has no doubt shaped their own self-perception. A way of life that is followed unthinkingly by everyone in society has a different character than one that is followed in opposition to the dominant society. The Amish may not be so much medieval as medieval-in-or-against-modernity.

Whatever else might be said about modernity and its accompanying social, economic, and political structures, one thing it does provide is a framework in which diverse approaches to life can co-exist and flourish.* Liberal democracy is, officially and within contestable limits, neutral between the forms of life that people choose to pursue. It may be that this is the very thing that allows the Amish to exist as a living rebuke of many of modernity’s values.

————————————————-

*I’m aware of those critics who would say that liberal modernity creates only the appearance of tolerance and diversity by suppressing and silencing ways of life that fall outside of its boundaries. These criticisms can come from the “right” as well as the “left.” While there’s certainly truth to this, I think it’s patently obvious that, comparatively speaking at least, liberal modernity allows for a greater variety than virtually any other social system yet devised.

This is still a free enough country that no one actually has to vote. Perhaps it is the only freedom we have left: the freedom not to collaborate with any segment of the political class that is destroying the last vestiges of the American republic. Whether you choose to withhold your vote or to throw it away on candidates who do not (for all practical purposes) want to win, you will at least have the smug satisfaction of saying, “I told you so,” no matter which candidate wins. I’m going to be selling bumper stickers that say, “Don’t blame me. I didn’t vote.” — Thomas Fleming

Okay, all this political blogging’s got me down. Let’s take things back to a more abstract level.

Sometimes people argue that since there is no universally agreed upon moral theory (say, utilitarianism, Kantianism, divine command theory, or whatever), then we should be moral relativists. That is, if we don’t have a satisfactory second-order theory about morality, then we’re not justified in holding on to our first-order moral judgments.

This doesn’t seem right. Consider an analogy. For thousands of years, the human race had no theory about how sense perception worked (and certainly not a correct theory until fairly recently – or at least we think it’s correct!). Does this mean that for all that time people were unjustified in their perceptual judgments? Surely not. My judgment that I see a computer screen in front of me is independent, epistemically speaking, of whether or not I have a correct theory about how perception works (In fact, whatever theory of perception I do have is a rather fuzzy one. I’m sure I would have a hard time explaining it in any detail).

Similarly, or so it seems to me, is it with our moral judgments. Take a first-order moral judgment like “It is wrong to inflict prolonged and undeserved suffering merely for one’s own pleasure or convenience.” This seems to be about as close to an obvious moral truism as you’re going to get. And certainly someone who believes this is justified in believing it even if they never think about or come into contact with moral theorizing. Moreover, I would say that this moral truism is probably more certain than just about any premise one would use in constructing a moral theory. And any moral theory that implied that this truism was false should, for that reason, be rejected as an inadequate theory.

Just as we perceive facts about the material world, it may be that we “perceive” moral facts. The fact that we don’t have a fully satisfactory theory about morality isn’t, on its face, reason to give up morality any more than the lack of a theory of perception would’ve been reason for our forebears to give up making perceptual judgments.

At National Review Online, Steve Waldman (founder of Beliefnet) does a good job straightening out some of the recent loose talk about religious belief and politics:

Let’s say a Senator A opposes the Iraq war on practical grounds. He thinks it’s a distraction from fighting al Qaeda that erodes our credibility overseas. He votes no on the war. Senator B also opposes the war. He’s a Catholic and has read up on just-war theory and concluded that this war is immoral because it was preemptive and could have been avoided through peaceful means. He votes no, too.

They both voted no — and yet one did so for reasons practical, and the other for reasons moral and theological. Is one an appropriate vote and the other not? Slice it further. Let’s say Senator C also voted against the war and, like Senator B, did so primarily for moral reasons. But in his case, Senator C read no Catholic just war theory; instead, he came to view it as immoral after seeing Fahrenheit 9/11. So Senators B and C both voted against for moral reasons: in one case, from having seen a secular movie, and in the other, from having read a religious document.

Are we really saying that only Senators A and C, the ones who didn’t draw upon religion, used legitimate thought processes?



This seems exactly right to me. Whatever else “separation of church and state” may mean, it doesn’t, and shouldn’t, mean that religious believers have to bracket their beliefs when acting in their capacity as citizens. First of all, is that even psychologically possible? If I have a moral belief, informed by my religion, can I somehow suspend that belief when I enter the voting booth? Secondly, it can’t possibly be right to demand that I do this, since it clearly violates my right of conscience.

Waldman, however, also challenges religious conservatives to use non-religious arguments to convince their opponents:

There is, however, a problem with the way some religious conservatives approach the political sphere. The problem is not dogmatism, but laziness. Someone who rests the argument for a certain position entirely on the fact that his religion told him to is not really attempting to persuade. Even if one is motivated by faith, one still has to convince others using secular, or at least broad-gauge, moral arguments.

I think Waldman strikes a good balance here. It’s entirely appropriate for religion to motivate one’s stand on political issues, but in a pluralistic democracy you have to make your case to people who don’t agree with you. And not everyone is going to be convinced by a handful of Bible quotations.

Waldman’s article is a good rejoinder to this atrocious piece by Robert Reich from a few weeks back. Reich, a former Clinton administration official, thinks that the real threat to America in the 21st century is not terrorism carried out by Islamist fanatics, but religion per se:

The great conflict of the 21st century may be between the West and terrorism. But terrorism is a tactic, not a belief. The underlying battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernist fanatics; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe blind allegiance to a higher authority; between those who give priority to life in this world and those who believe that human life is no more than preparation for an existence beyond life; between those who believe that truth is revealed solely through scripture and religious dogma, and those who rely primarily on science, reason, and logic. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism is not the only danger we face.

Just try and count all the false dichotomies in that passage!

On the other hand, Michael Novak is just off the rails:

Finally, there is the matter of faith, even of the sort Tom Paine showed in 1776. Paine was no Christian, but he did believe that God had created this vast and splendid universe in order to share His friendship with free women and free men, and for this reason the Creator put freedom at the core of things. Tom Paine had no tolerance for the Bible, and less for Biblical fundamentalists, but he was not so much an atheist, he wrote, as to believe that the Almighty Who made the universe for liberty would allow the cause of people willing to die for it to come to naught. Paine couldn’t bring himself to believe that God would favor George III.

In that same spirit, I find it hard to believe that the Creator who gave us liberty will ignore President Bush’s willingness to sacrifice his own presidency for the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq — their 50 million citizens, and perhaps their progeny for ages to come. A kind of cosmic justice (which does not always materialize, I recognize) calls for vindication. Especially when the president has been so unfairly calumniated by his foes, domestic and foreign.



I think it’s just possible that engineering George Bush’s re-election may not be at the top of God’s “to do” list.

I’ve been looking for a reason to back John Kerry. Really I have. I mean, President Bush has lost any goodwill I might have had for him by racking up huge deficits, playing fast and loose with civil liberties, and starting a “war of prevention,” for which the justification has proven to be shaky to say the least.

But they’re not making it easy for me.

I tune in to the Democratic convention and listen to Wesley Clark, former commander of NATO and Democratic presidential candidate, give his speech in support of Kerry. John Kerry, Clark assures us, is a “warrior” who is ready to join the “pantheon” of heroic Democratic “war presidents” like Woodrow Wilson, JFK, and…Bill Clinton!

Now, look General Clark, you’re not going to win me over by invoking Woodrow Wilson of all people, possibly my least favorite president ever. This is the guy who dragged the USA into the pointless charnel house of World War I, slapped unprecedented federal controls on the economy, and had an attitude toward civil liberties that makes John Ashcroft look like a charter member of the ACLU (two words: Palmer Raids). Not to mention inspiring generations of messianic delusions about “making the world safe for democracy.”

JFK? Well, wasn’t he the guy who manufactured a non-existent missile gap to ratchet up the Cold War and almost started World War III over Cuba?

And Bill Clinton? Don’t get me started! This is the “liberal” who never saw a country he didn’t want to bomb, whether it was Iraqis, Serbs, or maybe just the sole pharmaceutical plant of an impoverished African country. Anything to distract from the Monica mess, I guess.

The Democrats abandoned their Jeffersonian roots as the party that distrusted militarism and large combinations of power a long time ago. Peace and freedom isn’t where it’s at these days I guess. And as a kind of Jeffersonian peacenik myself, there really isn’t much for me to choose from between the two major parties. I realize that my views represent a fairly tiny demographic in the grand scheme of things, and that I am not exactly the target audience here. But, seriously, do the Dems really think they’re going to beat the GOP in the flag-waving and saber rattling department?

Political analysis is not our forte here at VI. Much preferred are the unfettered speculations of philosophy and theology. Nevertheless, we’re being bombarded by 24/7 coverage of the Democrats’ convention, so one’s thoughts naturally turn to politics.

Now, it occurs to me that something strange is happening. Large swaths of the “anti-war” movement, broadly speaking, are supporting Kerry: left-wingers, pacifists, and other assorted peaceniks. I realize there is a strong felt need to throw out the hated Bush, but I can’t help but notice that the rhetoric, at least, of the Kerry campaign has so far not been very, well, pacifistic.

For instance, just last night John Edwards promised this:

We will lead strong alliances. We will safeguard and secure our weapons of mass destruction. We will strengthen our homeland security, protect our ports, protect our chemical plants, and support our firefighters, police officers, EMTs. We will always… We will always use our military might to keep the American people safe. And we, John and I, we will have one clear unmistakable message for Al Qaida and these terrorists: You cannot run. You cannot hide. We will destroy you.

He also vowed that he and Kerry would pursue victory in Iraq:

With a new president who strengthens and leads our alliances, we can get NATO to help secure Iraq. We can ensure that Iraq’s neighbors, like Syria and Iran, don’t stand in the way of a democratic Iraq. We can help Iraq’s economy by getting other countries to forgive their enormous debt and participate in the reconstruction. We can do this for the Iraqi people. We can do it for our own soldiers. And we will get this done right. A new president will bring the world to our side, and with it a stable Iraq, a real chance for freedom and peace in the Middle East, including a safe and secure Israel.



Andrew Sullivan, probably as good a gauge of generally “hawkish” opinion as any, seemed smitten:

“Edwards gave an immensely tough, hawkish pro-war speech. They really are pulling a Kennedy in 1960.”

(“Pulling a Kennedy” here refers to running to the “right” of the Republicans on national security, i.e. being tougher than Bush.)

Now, obviously both the peaceniks and Sullivan can’t be right about Kerry, can they? Is he “tough, hawkish [and] pro-war” or is Kerry, as Sydney Callahan–“an advocate of a Catholic consistent ethic of life”–recently put it, “a Catholic veteran and antiwar protester [who] will be committed to work for a foreign policy of international cooperation aimed at peacemaking”?

Somebody, it seems, is engaged in wishful thinking here. If history is any guide, I suspect it’s the peaceniks who are getting taken for a ride.

More realistically (or maybe just more cynically), Alexander Cockburn says Kerry:

…offers himself up mainly as a more competent manager of the Bush agenda, a steadier hand on the helm of the Empire. His pedigree is immaculate. He was a founder-member of the Democratic Leadership Council, the claque of neoliberals that has sought to reshape it as a hawkish and pro-business party with a soft spot for abortion-essentially a stingier version of the Rockefeller Republicans. Kerry enthusiastically backed both of Bush’s wars, and in June of 2004, at the very moment Bush signaled a desire to retreat, the senator called for 25,000 new troops to be sent to Iraq, with a plan for the US military to remain entrenched there for at least the next four years.

 

Now, competent management is not to be despised, even if it is the management of an empire. But this seems a far cry from the “peace candidate” many might imagine they’re getting.

Items of interest from around the web:

George Will asks: Why all the acrimony between the parties? Blame the intellectuals!

From the London Spectator: Dealing With Animal Rights Extremism

Alexander Cockburn on “Candidate Kerry”: “Kerry offers himself up mainly as a more competent manager of the Bush agenda, a steadier hand on the helm of the Empire.”

Jamie Fly on the death of religion in Europe:

As Christianity declines, the only religion flourishing in Europe is Islam. Roughly fifteen million Muslims (three times the number of Muslims in the United States), many radicalized by their experiences with secular European culture, now call Europe home. Combined with a secular elite which international legal scholar Joseph Weiler has described as “Christophobic,” this is a recipe for disaster. The real problem is not nascent anti-Semitism, but Europe’s attitude toward religion in general.

Andy Crouch says “Live More Musically”:

For a musician, to live more musically means to embrace practices—disciplines, rewarding only in the long run, that no one would pay for in the short run. But the core doctrine of consumer culture, reinforced a thousand times a day, is the belief that we can satisfy our deepest longings with purchases instead. Want to live more musically? Buy a CD. Want to “live strong”? Nike has a pair of sneakers for you. Purchases are not only instantly satisfying, they also wear out quickly. So they generate an ongoing stream of revenue, supporting the advertising that draws us toward them in the first place. 

From Reason‘s Brian Doherty:

I have in other contexts floated reasons why limited-government devotees might consider cheering a Kerry victory over Bush. But it strikes me that I have some more rationally selfish reasons as well, ones that will more directly affect my day-to-day life, to have a slight preference for a Kerry victory over Bush in the current context (not that it would make me vote for him or advise others to): A Kerry victory will mean I’ll no longer be haunted with endless, tedious haranguing about the unique evils of George W. Bush and extemporaneous ramblings on national and international politics while hanging out in my usual bars, especially in San Francisco. National politics, wars, and the like suddenly become much less of an active concern for most of the non-libertarians I socialize with when a Democrat is in office. While I fear, for example, that the situation in Iraq and the level of U.S. violent involvement in it will remain the same whether Bush or Kerry reign, a significant portion of America’s left will suddenly not care about it anymore, and after time the daily reports on American casualties will sink to the one-paragraph “international roundup” on page A-12.

(For Part I go here.)

 

“Jesus answered: ‘Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, “Show us the Father”? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.’” (John 14:9-10)

Christians believe that in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, God revealed himself to humanity. What does this mean? One way to think of it is to say that Jesus’ life was the very life of God lived out under the conditions of human life. This is affirmed by the doctrine of the Incarnation: Jesus is true man and true God. In everything he said and did, Jesus displayed the character of God.

What is that character? As biblical scholar Luke Timothy Johnson puts it, Jesus exemplified in his life and teachings a “pattern of obedience and self-giving love.” The God revealed in Jesus is one who gives from the depths of his own being to his creation, and who loves his creatures even when they’ve gone astray. Like the Good Shepherd, God seeks out the lost, the outcast, and the sinner in order to bring them back into the fold. It is a central Christian belief that the nature of God’s love is disclosed most fully in the life of Jesus, and pre-eminently in his submission to death—“even death on a cross.”

But what does all this have to do with the problem of evil? It shows that the way we would choose to deal with evil is not necessarily the way God chooses to deal with evil. We prefer to eradicate or at least avoid sinners; God prefers to love and embrace them.

This seems unjust, scandalous even. Why should God let evildoers off the hook? Until we recall that we’re evildoers too. That “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” The God of Christianity, as revealed in Jesus, takes evil upon himself, accepts its brutal effects, and suffers under its weight, instead of retaliating, of returning evil for evil. This is what is revealed on the cross, the “crucified God” as Jurgen Moltmann put it.

The good news, then, is that God loves sinners (that is, us) and takes the effects of sin upon himself. We, who have done evil, are loved by the creator and sustainer of the entire cosmos. This is the truth about God that Christians believe has been revealed in Jesus.

But this doesn’t seem quite right. God may love sinners, but has he left them to their own devices, allowed sin’s effects to run rampant in the world? Has the Atonement made any difference in terms of actually putting an end to sin and evil? As I said earlier, the revelatory aspect of the Atonement is just one part of the whole picture. Next up: reconciliation!