Jesus is here..."But love does such things!"

A child born to us....from Adoration of the Child, Gerard van Honthorst (1620)

In the beginning was the Word,

and the Word was with God;

God is being described. With him is someone else, someone called “the Word”; he is the expression of the meaning and fullness of God, the First Person, Speaker of the Word. This Second Person is also God, “was God,” yet there is only one God. Further, the Second Person “came” into his own: into the world which he had created. Let us consider carefully what this means: the everlasting, infinite Creator not only reigns over or in the world but, at a specific “moment,” crossed an unimaginable borderline and personally entered into history—he, the inaccessibly remote one! 

This is the Italian-German theologian Romano Guardini speaking in his classic The Lord. It's a classic because it has gained recognition generation by generation for offering incisive insight into the why and how of God among us. This book was first published in Germany in 1937, and an English-language translation was published in 1954. Guardini, a priest and and academic, influenced some of the ecumenical thinking expressed in the documents of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). 

Guardini, in a chapter of The Lord titled "The Incarnation" continues:

However, this journey of God from the everlasting into the transitory, this stride across the border into history, is something no human intellect can altogether grasp. The mind might even oppose the apparently fortuitous, human aspect of this interpretation with its own "purer" idea of godliness, yet precisely here lies hidden the kernel of Christianity. Before such an unheard of thought the intellect bogs down. Once at this point a friend gave me a clue that helped my understanding more than any measure of bare reason. He said: "But love does such things!" Again and again these words have come to the rescue when the mind has stopped short at some intellectual impasse. Not that they explain anything to the intelligence; they arouse the heart, enabling it to feel its way into the secrecy of God. The mystery is not understood, but it does move nearer, and the danger of "scandal: disappears.

None of the great things in human life springs from the intellect; every one of them issues from the heart and its love. If even human love has its own reasoning, comprehensible only to the heart that is open to it, how much truer must this be of God's love! When it is the depth and power of God that stirs, is there anything of which love is incapable? The glory of it is so overwhelming that to all who do not accept love as an absolute point of departure, its manifestations must seem the most senseless folly.

The particularity of God's coming to us in human form, as a kind of fulfilment of the proto-gospel of the ancient Greek and Roman legends, is astonishing given the social status of those given the responsibility of parental care, and the colonised nation, and the minor towns of birth and residence in which Jesus was planted to grow in stature and then to step forward to address the world. However, ...

If someone in Capharnaum or Jerusalem at the time had asked the Lord: Who are you? Who are your parents? To what house do you belong? – He might have answered in the words of St. John’s gospel: “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I am.” (8:58) Or he might have pointed out that he was “of the house and family of David.” (Luke 2:4)

How do the Evangelists begin their records of the life of Jesus of Nazareth who is Christ, the Anointed One? John probes the mystery of God’s existence for Jesus’ origin. His gospel opens: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was made nothing that has been made. . . . He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not. . . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. And we saw his glory – glory as of the only-begotten of the Father – full of grace and truth.” (John 1:1–14)

The incarnation, God taking on human form, and the trinity of persons in one Godhead, are the most distinctive truths of Christianity: 

Revelation shows that the merely unitarian God found in post-Christian Judaism, in Islam, and throughout the modern consciousness, does not exist. At the heart of that mystery which the Church expresses in her teaching of the trinity of persons in the unity of life stands the God of Revelation.

Here John seeks the root of Christ’s existence: in the second of the Most Holy Persons; the Word (Logos), in whom God the Speaker, reveals the fullness of his being. Speaker and Spoken, however, incline towards each other and are one in the love of the Holy Spirit. The Second “Countenance” of God, here called Word, is also named Son, since he who speaks the Word is known as Father.

In the Lord’s farewell address, the Holy Spirit is given the promising names of Consoler, Sustainer, for he will see to it that the brothers and sisters in Christ are not left orphans by his death. Through the Holy Spirit the Redeemer came to us, straight from the heart of the Heavenly Father. Son of God become man – not only descended to inhabit a human frame, but “become” man – literally; and in order that no possible doubt arise, (that, for example, it might never be asserted that Christ, despising the lowliness of the body, had united himself only with the essence of a holy soul or with an exalted spirit,) John specifies sharply: Christ “was made flesh.”

Only in the flesh, not in the bare spirit, can destiny and history come into being. . . .God descended to us in the person of the Savior, Redeemer, in order to have a destiny, to become history. Through the Incarnation, the founder of the new history stepped into our midst. With his coming, all that had been before fell into its historical place “before the birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ,” anticipating or preparing for that hour; all that was to be, faced the fundamental choice between acceptance and rejection of the Incarnation.

He “dwelt among us,” “pitched his tent among us,” as one translation words it. “Tent” of the Logos – what is this but Christ’s body: God’s holy pavilion among men, the original tabernacle of the Lord in our Midst, the “temple” Jesus meant when he said to the Pharisees: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” (John 2:19)

Somewhere between that eternal beginning and the temporal life in the flesh lies the mystery of the Incarnation. St. John presents it austerely, swinging its full metaphysical weight. Nothing here of the wealth of lovely characterization and intimate detail that makes St. Luke’s account bloom so richly. Everything is concentrated on the ultimate, all-powerful essentials: Logos, flesh, step into the world; the eternal origin, the tangible earthly reality, [but still] the mystery of unity.

Merry Christmas everyone! And may it mean a rich appreciation of God's love for each of us.

Gerard van Honthorst - Adoration by the Shepherds (1622) cropped

The Pill: death just one more downside

Differences between men and women remain profound.    Photo by Keira Burton

The sexual revolution that followed widespread access to the contraceptive pill had been a mixed blessing for women, writer Louise Perry said in an interview with Radio New Zealand's Sunday Morning programme. Her focus is mainly on the social impact of the pill on women's lives.

Also in New Zealand, a coronor's court hearing was held last week into the deaths of two women caused by complications in taking the contraceptive pill. The pill has been "the big technology shock" that drives the sexual revolution, according to Perry, and the consequences for women have been severe.

As it happens, women are also suffering from the impact of another technological "advance", one that that benefits men, namely viagra. For comment on how that is so, go here.

But the deaths of the New Zealand women, one 24, the other 17, shows that deviating from what is natural can involve life and death consequences. This from a news report:

A coroner has issued a warning to women taking the contraceptive pill, and to doctors prescribing it, after two young women died 10 days apart in similar circumstances.

Both women had a previously unknown blood clotting condition, which is exacerbated when taking the hormonal pill, increasing the risk of developing deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism by 35 times.

In light of moves in a few countries to make hormonal contraceptives available over the counter, the coroner's judgment is telling:  

Coroner Ho has now given a warning regarding use of the combined oral contraceptive pill, which he said, if brought to public attention, could reduce the chances of the occurrence of other deaths in circumstances similar to the two women.

While use of the combined oral contraceptive pill increases the risk of developing deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism in all women, the risk increases with family or personal history of blood clotting conditions – which women may not even be aware of, he said.

All women starting the combined oral contraceptive pill should be told that there is an increased risk of venous thromboembolism.

Also, all prescribers of the combined oral contraceptive pill, and other hormone related medications, should ensure they take a comprehensive clinical history and inform patients about the risks of venous thromboembolism, the seriousness of the condition and the symptoms to look out for, he said.

In addition, medical practitioners need to be vigilant about the possibility of venous thromboembolism, even where a woman appears to have few risk factors. 

Nonchalance about women's deaths is not acceptable.

Though society accepts there will be victims of technology deemed useful for its way of life, nonchalance about this is not acceptable.

To return to Perry's train of thought, a lot that has become generally acceptable in societies captured by the sexual revolution mentality is not fair for women.  Perry said this on the RNZ interview at the time of the publication of her book, The Case Against the Sexual Revolution: 

“The argument I make basically is that women have got a pretty raw deal, because on the one hand, we suffer all of the consequences, negative consequences, when sex goes wrong, in terms of things like unwanted pregnancies, and sexual violence overwhelmingly, is perpetrated by men against women.

“But we don't get nearly as many of the positive sides of it because it is more likely to be things like casual sex are much more likely to be enjoyed by men and less so by women. 

“And so, while I argue that there are obviously all sorts of benefits from the sexual revolution, crucially the pill, which is the big technology shock that drives all of this, and that women are now able to control their reproduction in a way that wasn't possible in the past, just because the technology didn't exist to allow us to.”

But, she says, there are “whole bunch of downsides on the social level.”

That's because the differences between men and women remain profound.

“I think that it was a mistake for some strains of feminism to assume that trying to imitate men, and specifically to imitate a kind of masculine style of sexuality, was necessarily aspirational for women.

“So, the idea that if we could just kind of let go of all of those old-fashioned norms and just be more free then that would necessarily result in women being happier. I don't think that has happened.”

The contraceptive pill hasn’t liberated women

Perry quotes a line in her book ‘when motherhood became a biological choice for women, fatherhood became a social choice for men’, and believes it is now more socially acceptable for men to walk away from their children and the mothers of their children.

“Particularly if they're conceived in kind of casual relationships, because the reasoning from these men and they'll say it pretty boldly sometimes, is well it was it was your fault for not using contraception properly, it was your fault for not getting an abortion. It's your problem now, basically. Which is obviously hugely destructive for the women who end up abandoned and their children most of all.”

It is ironic, she says, that a technology that allows women to take charge of their fertility would have led to an increase in single motherhood.

“You’d think it would be the opposite, wouldn't you? Because with a few exceptions, no woman would choose single motherhood; it is so difficult having to play the role of both mother and father. And we know that single mothers are much poorer than average, face all kinds of adversity.

“And yet that was precisely the effect of the pill.”

Social norms changed quickly

The pill rapidly changed societal norms in which young people lived, she says.

“The social norms that had existed to control horny young people, to put it bluntly, to keep them apart from one another, to control childbearing which was the function of all of these old fashioned norms often understood by feminists as being patriarchal and oppressive and of course they were that was one of their functions, one of their effects.

“But they also had other purposes around controlling the circumstances in which children were born and the environment in which they brought up in and when those norms were very, very rapidly destroyed at the same time as religion fading away in the West, you ended up with, for instance, the shotgun marriage just no longer serving any purpose whatsoever.

“And so, by the end of the 70s the shotgun marriage basically doesn't exist anymore.

“It's very, very rapid social change. And of course, it had benefits. But the argument that I'm making in the book is that it had a lot of downsides as well.”

Another voice on the failure of the feminist project 

Valerie M. Hudson, a distinguished professor at the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University, in reviewing Perry's book, writes: 

Ironically, although relatively effective and accessible contraception for women has been widely available since the 1960s, it has proved a double-edged sword for women. Contraception definitely helped women to obtain a much higher level of agency in their lives, which is all to the good, but at the same time there was one area in which women lost agency: The social ability to refuse a man casual sex.

Now sex is on men’s terms, and what ugly terms those turned out to be. As Perry puts it, many women today must pretend to derive pleasure from things they don’t want to do, and say they don’t mind when “friends with benefits” arrangements actually cause pain. It is plain, she writes, that “the sexual playing field is not equal, but it suits the interests of the powerful to pretend that it is.” Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows — and the minnows are, in the first place, female, and increasingly, the victims of the sexual “revolution” are children being sexually abused.

Perry doesn’t sugarcoat the antidote: Some desires are wrong, and they should be — even must be — repressed and not acted upon. The concept of “consent” is simply too low a bar, given the stakes. She argues for a new standard of sexual integrity, “one that recognizes other human beings as real people, invested with real value and dignity ... even if that means curtailing our freedoms.”

Rather than exercising agency “by having loveless, brusque sex with men they don’t like who show no regard for (them) and discard them immediately afterward,” women would realize, as most eventually do after significant harm, that “unwanted sex is worse than sexual frustration.” That “a truly feminist project would demand that it should be men, not women, who adjust their sexual appetites.”

A new ethic of sexual integrity, is needed. We need to be able to say that certain desires are wrong, and that there will be real accountability for the harm that pursuing them will cause. Consent is not enough and never can be when the playing field is so uneven. We need a better sexual revolution, one based on male sexual integrity, not male sexual license.

The WebMD website states: "Natural family planning is a form of birth control that doesn't involve pills or devices. As a result, it doesn't have side effects." More women are exploring that option, with the documentary The Business of Birth Control being one factor in highlighting the pharmaceutical industry's role in this area of potential harm to women's health and to their well-being in society.

Ω See also: Humanae Vitae, 1968. Also found here

Ω Leave a comment and, if you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified by email when a new post is published.

Happiness is the new snake oil

Mike King ... 'no such thing as perfect happiness'

Comedian turned mental health advocate and New Zealander of the Year Mike King has packed a lot into his 61 years. As well as his multiple roles on radio and TV over the years he is a dedicated family man and has six children. He became the New Zealand poker champion player and it was in that connection he travelled to Australia where he suffered a blood clot that brought him close to death. That scare was on top of his years-long cocaine addiction.

King is often in the media as a celebrity speaker but also in his role as a mental health advocate. Interviews that feature him get a lot of attention from the public because he has the ability to discuss serious matters directly, but with a nice touch of humour to make for a lively as well as worthwhile time.

The New Zealand Herald, the nation's largest newspaper/news website, featured King in an interview series of people of note in various fields, a kind of car karaoke, without the karaoke.

King came up trumps with his common sense approach to serious issues. He was asked, What is your idea of perfect happiness? His answer reflects his deep involvement in efforts to save kids from the effects of the new cultural forces weighing on them:

I love this question, because there is no such thing as perfect happiness, and constantly striving for it and talking about it is having a devastating effect on our kids’ mental health. Happiness is the new snake oil, and snake oil salesmen are trying to sell it to you.

This question is about what makes people really, really happy. But there’s a bit of a problem with the idea of “perfect happiness”, because it’s kind of like chasing after something that doesn’t really exist. Imagine it’s a bit like someone trying to sell you a magical potion, saying, “If you buy this, it will make you perfectly happy”.

In today’s world, there are lots of messages that tell us we can buy happiness. They make it seem like if you get a fancy car, the latest gadgets or follow certain trends, you’ll be super-happy all the time. But here’s the thing: it doesn’t work that way.

Happiness is a bit like a rollercoaster – it goes up and down. Sometimes you feel really happy, and other times, you don’t. And that’s okay; it’s part of being human.

The problem is when people keep chasing this idea of being “perfectly happy” all the time. It can actually make them feel worse about themselves because they can’t reach this impossible standard. This especially affects young people who feel pressured to be happy all the time, and that can lead to feeling stressed or sad.

So, instead of aiming for “perfect happiness”, it’s better to think of happiness as something you find along the way in your life journey. It’s about enjoying the good moments, accepting the tough ones, and not getting tricked by those who promise a quick fix for happiness. Remember, it’s okay not to be happy all the time – that’s just part of being human.

What’s the one word to sum up your mood right now?

In a word? Hopeful. It’s clear New Zealand has changed a lot recently. There’s this growing sense that we’re putting people in boxes based on their beliefs or affiliations. More and more, it feels like we’re in our own bubbles, hearing only what we want to hear.

But even with all that, I’m optimistic. I think there’s always a chance for understanding and unity. It’s my hope that New Zealanders can embrace diverse opinions, find common ground and remember the power of true community. 

What do you hope/think NZ will look like in 10 years?

I began with this idea, and I’ll conclude with it: my hope is for a more united and cohesive society. I’ve never witnessed our beautiful country more divided than it is now, and it’s disheartening. It seems that we have lost our connection to humanity, leading us to judge one another based on surface-level differences instead of seeking to understand each other’s perspectives.

The recent election serves as a stark illustration of this division, with people from all sides hurling accusations and failing to truly listen to one another. It’s evident to me that people feel unheard by those in power because in everyday conversations, we increasingly hear sighs of resignation, with people saying, “Well, what can you do?”

When we feel like our voice is lost, we tend to gravitate toward like-minded individuals who share our views. This creates echo chambers where we continually hear the same opinions. We’re pushed to view those with differing perspectives as adversarial. We’re no longer exposed to a range of viewpoints, which means we miss the chance to empathise with and appreciate other people’s journeys.

Unless we actively work to understand one another and prioritise unity over division in the years ahead, the consequences for the next generation could be devastating.

Elsewhere, King is reported as saying that his charity organisation, a free counselling service for any person aged 25 and under, has encountered soaring demand for its services, up by more than 500 per cent in just two years.

Ω More voices as part of the interview series

Ω Leave a comment and, if you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified by email when a new post is published.

Bible publishers, restore the Apocrypha!

Judith with the head of Holofernes by Benvenuto Tisi da Garafalo (1481-1559). 

Publishers, restore the Apocrypha to your Bibles! Give readers access to these spiritual treasures!

The Apocrypha, or more precisely the Deuterocanon, refers to those books and passages of the Old and New Testaments about which there was controversy at one time in early Christian history, with disputes  reviving just before and within the Reformation period. The Church has historically included these as wholly part of its canon of inspired writings: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Baruch, I and II Maccabees, parts of Esther (10:4-16, 14), and Daniel (3:24-90, 13, 14). 

These books were included in almost every Protestant Bible until the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society excised them in 1825. Until then, they had been included at least in an appendix of Bibles.  As to the present, there is no excuse for publishers not including the Apocrypha, at least in study Bibles, even if it does affect the cost-profit equation. 

We note these points:

At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546). 

Even when that list was established in A.D. 382, the writings were not collected into a single book until after the printing press came into existence. Even Gutenberg’s Bible was published in more than one volume.

Martin Luther included them in his first German translation, published before the Council of Trent. They can also be found in the first King James Version (1611) and in the first Bible ever printed, the Gutenberg Bible (a century before Trent). In fact, these books were included in almost every Bible until the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society excised them in 1825. Until then, they had been included at least in an appendix of Protestant Bibles.  —  Source 

Until publishers come to the aid of all Christians and remove this barrier to our ability to tap the wisdom of God-fearing people of the Old Testament era we must act independently. I offer here a means of access to those special texts. Naturally, given the circumstances, I provide links to a Catholic Bible, so-called because it contains those texts that have borne the weight of the contention referred to above.

For the purposes of this exercise I utilise the Gateway facility, which makes available the New Catholic Bible (published 2019), a boon to those seeking to know God's word well. That is because the NCB provides introductions and footnotes to help the reader understand God's message as communicated in diverse human ways.

First, in the traditional order of the Bible's sequence of The Pentateuch, The Historical Books, The Wisdom Books, and then The Prophets, is the heart-warming "historical" account of the righteous Tobit and his family. As is Tobit and Esther, Judith is presented as a theological consideration of the history of  the people of God.

[[[ In Historical Books ]]]

Tobit: Link to Introduction: Go here

Tobit: Link to Chapter 1: Go here  

Judith: Introduction: Go here 

Judith: Chapter 1: Go here 

Esther: Introduction: Go here 

Esther: Chapter 1: Go here, but note the key chapters and verses

1 Maccabees: Introduction: Go here 

1 Maccabees: Chapter 1: Go here 

2 Maccabees: Introduction: Go here 

2 Maccabees: Chapter 1: Go here 

[[[ In Wisdom Books ]]]

Wisdom: Introduction: Go here 

Wisdom: Chapter 1: Go here 

Sirach, also known as Ecclesiasticus, or Wisdom of Ben Sira: Introduction: Go here

Sirach: Chapter 1: Go here

[[[ In Prophets ]]]

Daniel: Introduction: Go here

Daniel: Chapter 1: Go here, but note key chapters and verses

That's it! Of course there is a large number of other texts from the Old Testament era and especially  New Testament times that the Church has had to weigh for authenticity. But the texts that have been part of the canon, that Jerome himself abided by in an idiosyncratic fashion, are God-given to bring us closer to Him. Church leaders and publishers need to put aside the urge to wage doctrinal battles and seek to accomplish God's plan of offering spiritual riches. Restore what has been lost!

Ω Leave a comment and, if you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified by email when a new post is published.

Why so many are blowing their brains out

Over the past few days the writer and cultural critic Rod Dreher has been on a tear with brilliant insights into the human condition from a Christian perspective. Here are a some of the most pithy, from his Rod Dreher's Diary newsletter on Substack:

There is a great mystery here. The Christian faith does not promise that we won’t suffer. It promises only that we will not suffer alone, and that come what may, the God who suffered will not abandon us, and that if we stay faithful, the day will come when He will wipe away every tear. We can know through faith that though chaos, disorder, and hatred may triumph in this broken world, it does not have to triumph through us, or within us.

[...] After the sermon, reflecting on his words, I thought about how our God is not a god of transaction: you do this thing, and are guaranteed that result. That’s not how it is with Him. He works through faith — and this faith of ours, He tests.

It could be that in His permissive will, He allows us to suffer for a time for some greater good. After all, the incomparable blessing of bearing the Messiah of Israel, the Savior of the world, Mary had to endure watching her beloved son mocked, tortured, and crucified. I don’t know if this is true, but I think Mary looks so sad in icons of herself with her little Son because she knows what is coming. As the Prophet Simeon said to her at her infant’s presentation in the temple: “Look, he is destined for the fall and for the rise of many in Israel, destined to be a sign that is opposed, and a sword will pierce your own soul too — so that the secret thoughts of many may be laid bare” (Luke 2:34-35).

The point is that the will of God typically works itself out in part through suffering and sacrifice. Not even God’s only Son was spared. Nor was His mother. Mary knew from virtually the beginning that the blessing that began with the Incarnation, and her willingness to receive the Lord of Hosts into her womb, and that began to blossom there at the altar of the temple, would be mixed with tragedy. (November 19, 2023)

[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[

Protestants and others may mistakenly think we are praying to Mary as a goddess. No, that’s not true. What we honor in her is her fidelity to God, and the way the Most High used her, and her willingness to surrender entirely to His will, as the conduit for His entry into the world of mortality, through which the salvation of all mankind was accomplished. She is the most important sign directing us to Him. She is the “cornland yielding a rich crop of mercies” because she said to God, through the Archangel Gabriel, “Be it done to me according to Thy word,” and received the divine seed. God, in His great love for mankind, will not force us to obey Him. He offers us miracle, but we must be prepared to receive it. This is why we look up to the Holy Virgin. She is our leader in showing us what we must do to receive Him, and to thereby glorify God. Her womb is the “table bearing a wealth of forgiveness,” the Savior of the world. (November 19, 2023)

[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[

One more thing: we talked earlier this week about Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s conversion to Christianity, and how it strikes many people as purely instrumental. She had said that she was first drawn to Christianity because she saw that the things she had come to love about Western civilization were mostly down to its ancestral Christian faith. Plus, she could not bear the pain of nihilism that is inescapable from atheism. To these critics, this sounded like she became a Christian because it “works,” somehow.

As I wrote in her defense, nearly all of us who came to Jesus as adults did so through a messy way. Few if any of us had pure conversions, like St. Paul being struck on the road to Damascus. It is not surprising that Ayaan would approach the truth of Christ through looking at the civilizational fruits of Christian belief, and through her desolation at the stones of atheism, versus the bread of Christian faith. These are but signs pointing her onward, to a deep spiritual encounter with the living God. (November 19, 2023)

To convert to an enchanted way of seeing the world, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali has done, is in some sense a highly rational thing to do — because there is life in it. The road to God begins with small steps. Ayaan correctly grasps that there has to be more to life than what atheism teaches, and also grasps that not all religions are the same. But if she stops at believing in Christianity because it’s good for you, she will miss its wellspring of life, and her faith will be stillborn. (November 17, 2023)

[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ 

Paul Kingsnorth wondered if there is some kind of Wotan [aka Odin] rising now in the West. It absolutely feels that way to me. Part of it is the glorification of identity, especially racial identity. These leftist idiots who wanted to get all the non-whites drunk from drinking their own blood, so to speak, only legitimized whites doing it. Part of it is the glorification of sexual instinct, and the stigmatization of inhibition. Part of it is the glorification of emotion as a reliable guide to truth. Part of it is the worship of sex and violence. And part of it is the way mobs can be formed and activated instantly with the Internet — and more, can be formed around the most idiotic and malicious ideas, such as that Osama bin Laden was justified in ordering the 9/11 attacks. (November 17, 2023)

[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ 

Let me end this section with this great quote from John Michael Greer, a wise pagan with whom I strongly disagree on particular religious matters, but with whom I stand against the reductive materialism of our modern world: 

Of course the conventional wisdom of our time [claims] that the modern disenchanted state of consciousness is right and the enchanted state of consciousness is wrong. Central to the entire worldview of modern industrial culture is the belief that “we” (meaning here the minority of human beings during the last four centuries or so who have embraced the disenchanted state as truth, and believed devoutly in the ideology of scientific materialism) are the only human beings in all of history who have ever understood the world accurately, and everyone else down through the ages was just plain wrong. If that answer sounds arrogant to you, dear reader, let’s just say you’re not alone.

Yet there are other problems with the easy modern assumption that true believers in the modern ideologies of disenchantment are right and everyone else who ever lived was too stupid to notice how wrong they were. One of those problems is the simple fact that the entire edifice of modern materialist science rests on assumptions about the nature of human knowledge that were disproved once and for all more than two hundred years ago. Another is the equally simple but far more brutal fact that the disenchanted world praised by today’s pundits in such triumphant terms has turned out to be unfit for human habitation. If we’re so much smarter than our ancestors, and thus presumably so much better at understanding and meeting human needs with our omniscient science and almighty technology, how come so many of us are blowing our brains out or drinking and drugging ourselves to death because of the sheer misery of life in the world that reason has made? (November 17, 2023)

[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[

Snippets from Dreher's posts: 

[Wokeism ...] is an essentially totalitarian ideology that justifies evil in the name of fighting whatever it identifies as oppression.

[Wokeism ...] has taught an entire generation of educated American youth to sympathise with the mass murderers of Jews. 

A former priest said that people come to the Church saying they are seeking spiritual healing, but what they really want is a painkiller to temporarily avoid the consequences of their brokenness. For those who want the spiritual painkiller the Church cannot help them. But for those who want to be healed, the Church offers spiritual surgery that might hurt a lot at the beginning, but the healing will be real and true. 

Ω Leave a comment and, if you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified by email when a new post is published. 

Wokeism equals savagery and incoherence

Understanding the mentality that now infests Western culture is crucial if we are to regain a healthy way of conducting ourselves. Wokeism has eaten its way into the heart of that complex structure of ideas that produces a society's customs and norms founded on common sense.

Proof of its hold on the minds of the well-educated and "progressive" elite has been demonstrated by the failure of those key groups to condemn the Hamas atrocity while holding demonstrations organised in the name of support for the Palestinian cause, but marked with an ugly outpouring of anti-Jewish sentiment that went far beyond attacks on Israeli policies. 

Bari Weiss identifies how to be woke enough to glorify the Hamas massacre of Jews on October 7, as crowds did around the world, poses a threat to the West as a human project.    

When antisemitism moves from the shameful fringe into the public square, it is not about Jews. It is never about Jews. It is about everyone else. It is about the surrounding society or the culture or the country. It is an early warning system—a sign that the society itself is breaking down. That it is dying. 

It is a symptom of a much deeper crisis—one that explains how, in the span of a little over 20 years since September 11 [2001], educated people now respond to an act of savagery not with a defense of civilization, but with a defense of barbarism. [See video and text of Weiss's speech here]

In his new book America's Cultural Revolution: How the Radical Left Conquered Everything, Christopher Rufo says:

There is a rot spreading through American life. The country's foundations are starting to shake loose. A new nihilism is beginning to surround the common citizen in all the institutions that matter,: his government, his workplace, his church, his children's school, even his home. He knows we have been given a gift ‒ the American Republic ‒ but there is no guarantee it will last. He can feel it in his bones.

Susan Neiman is an American moral philosopher, author of Left is Not Woke, and director of the Einstein Forum in Potsdam, Germany. The book examines the disease of division and intolerance promoted by the woke, meaning those on the political left, the self-proclaiming "progressives". These poor saps, desperate to believe they are on the right side of history, spread their contagion by creating innovative categories for people in general according to subjective identities such as race, colour, sex, and nationality, and especially the various degress of gender-bending.

Neiman's book makes... 

...an impassioned defense against the corrosive particularisms that have eroded solidarity on the left. She argues that we must reclaim the kind of universalism that historically helped to forge diverse coalitions of activists in struggles for progress. To build a more just, equitable, and sustainable world, we need to acknowledge past victories, recognize the contingencies of our present, and embrace a radical politics of hope for our future.” Source

Other reviewers contribute insight into the parlous state of political thinking within woke circles:

 “In these bleak times, Susan Neiman's book arrives as a breath of fresh air.  Calmly but fiercely defending the principles of universalism and progress that once defined the left, she gives us a counter to the narrow tribalism that threatens to derail progressive politics” (Vivek Chibber, New York University). 

[Neiman] "envisages a progressive movement drawing from the full range of the human family, from people of all classes, ethnic backgrounds, and sexual identities.  She urges them to renew the values articulated by Enlightenment thinkers: not to confine human beings by ancestry or biology, not to settle for merely replacing one oppressive regime of power by another, not to abandon the hope of genuine human progress" (Philip Kitcher, Columbia University).

By digging into an essay first published in Germany, we observe the way Left is Not Woke applies a first-principles approach in what should be animating the struggle for equality and justice. 

1. Universalism

First on the list involves criticism of what Neiman calls the left's incoherence in fomenting a battle pitting one avowed particularism against another alleged particularism. As opposed to this tribalism, and in upholding the fundamental universalism of movements for social change in recent centuries, she writes:

Where on the political spectrum do we place a worldview that believes deep connection and a sense of duty are possible only between people who belong to the same tribe? One that sees all claims of justice as concealed grabs for power? One that rejects all previous attempts to achieve progress as having failed or as having made matters worse? Views like these belong to the domain of traditional right-wing thought, from the French writer Joseph de Maistre to the Nazi legal theorist Carl Schmitt. Today they are held by thinkers as different as Judith Butler, Saidiya Hartman, Walter Mignolo, Ibram X. Kendi, Robin DiAngelo, Gayatri Spivak, and Frank B. Wilderson, III.

"If reason is nothing more than an instrument of domination, who should make the effort to formulate an argument or understand the arguments of others?" 

They blame the problems of modernity on the ideas of the Enlightenment, typically without ever reading its foundational texts. In doing so, they jettison the core principles of social liberalism. For whoever puts tribal thinking before universalism, whoever reduces claims of justice to claims of power, and whoever regards past progress as merely instituting more subtle forms of oppression will have a difficult time actively engaging in left-wing causes.

Even worse: many of the woke, like many postcolonial thinkers — the categories overlap — equate reason with violence. They regard it as an instrument of domination with which white European men oppress the rest of the world. And where reason is rejected as violence, all that’s left is the celebration of subjectivity. Today it’s called positionality, according to which it is the position of the speaker that counts; what is said is secondary. If reason is nothing more than an instrument of domination, who should make the effort to formulate an argument or understand the arguments of others?

Considering universalism directly, Neimam writes:

Cultural diversity is both a fact and a blessing, but when it comes to political issues, we should focus on what unites us. The opposite of universalism is now called identitarianism, as if everything that constitutes our identity can be reduced to two dimensions. As Ghanaian-American philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah reminds us:

Until the middle of the 20th century … nobody who was asked about a person's identity would have mentioned race, sex, class, nationality, region or religion. 

It is no coincidence that, from among those categories, race and gender are taken to define our essence. After all, these are the characteristics that we do not choose for ourselves and that are therefore capable of generating the most trauma. In this, the woke movement is part of a shift in perspective that began in the 1950s in which the victim came to supersede the hero as the subject of history. At one time, the shift spoke to moral progress. Victims’ stories were finally being heard and discussed by the public at large. But in the process, recognition became associated with what the world has done to people instead of what people have done to the world. The idea of intersectionality might have emphasised the ways in which all of us have more than one identity. Instead, it is about the multiple forms of discrimination that individuals experience.

Likewise, in his book Elite Capture: How the Powerful Took Over Identity Politics (And Everything Else), philosopher Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò  decries the way "identity politics” is "polarizing discourse from the campaign trail to the classroom and amplifying antagonisms in the media, both online and off", as his publisher puts it. Seemingly, though the phrase was first used by "Black lesbians with the explicit aim of building solidarity across lines of difference, identity politics is now frequently weaponized as a means of closing ranks around ever-narrower conceptions of group interests".

Táíwò rejects such "elitist identity politics in favor of a constructive politics of radical solidarity, [and] advances the possibility of organizing across our differences in the urgent struggle for a better world".

So Neiman has solid company in seeking the restoration of universalism as a pillar of social justice endeavours. 

2. Justice

From Neiman:

The second basic principle of progressive thought is a firm distinction between justice and power. In practice, the distinction can be difficult to uphold. Commanders-in-chief have always claimed to wage just wars — Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush are only the most recent examples. But the principled distinction between justice and power is the foundation of progressive thought, however hard it may be to tell them apart in specific cases.

Human rights seek to put shackles on naked power. Let us not forget the historical circumstances in which those rights arose: if a peasant took the prince’s deer, he could be hanged; if a prince took the peasant’s daughter, that was just the way the world was. Without the effort to separate might from right, there is no concept of right at all. 

3. Progress

Neiman continues:

The third basic idea uniting those who stand on the left side of the political spectrum is the conviction that people can work together to make significant progress in the real conditions of their own and others’ lives. This is often caricatured as the belief that progress is inevitable — an idea that, after Auschwitz and Hiroshima, even the most committed Hegelian had to abandon. Enlightenment thinkers merely believed that progress was possible, in contrast to right-wing thinkers, who argue that the progress of a humanity burdened by Original Sin can never be moral, only technological.

Of course, woke activists want progress — they would be more credible, however, if they acknowledged that some progress or other has already occurred. Consistently demonstrating that for every previous step forward there have been two steps back can obscure a clear view of where you’re headed. When feminists in the West claim that we still live in a patriarchy, or woke Americans say that racism is part of the DNA of the United States, they are pointing to progress not yet achieved. That racism, sexism, and homophobia continue to exist in Western societies is beyond question. But if we don’t acknowledge that gradual progress has been made, we will be hard pressed to find the will and courage to fight for further improvement.

That reference to Original Sin brought to mind the oft-quoted truth expressed by Russian political prisoner and writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn:

“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

― The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956 

A similar train of thought is this: The greatest tragedy of this age is that we have lost the sense of sin.

Finally, Neiman has something to add by way of a conclusion:

Like progress, ideas of solidarity and justice drive woke struggles against discrimination. What falls under the radar is that the theories the woke embrace subvert their own goals. Without universalism, there is no argument against racism, merely a bunch of individual tribes jockeying for power. If that’s all politics is, there’s no way to maintain a robust idea of justice. And without commitments to increasing universal justice, we cannot coherently strive for progress.

As said above, there is a radical incoherence in wokeism. Clearly, that such an absurd ideology should capture the elite controlling institutions around the developed world proves we are far from resolving the mystery of human incompleteness, or confirming our understanding of the dynamics of human experience.

Ω Leave a comment and, if you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified by email when a new post is published.

A real man on display amid the horror

David Holmes takes Daniel Radcliffe for a drive in his adapted car in the HBO film

The emotional wimps Western culture breeds, the fragile folk who find a micro-aggression in every difficult encounter—it's these types who need to take a page out of the life of David Holmes, who was the stuntman for Daniel Radcliffe in the Harry Potter movies until he flew into a wall and broke his neck leaving him paralysed from the chest down.

Is there anything he gained from the accident? “Yeah, hugely. I will always say breaking my neck made a man of me. For sure, 100%.”

How to find the positive in what was truly horrific, in what led to continuing suffering, seems to be what motivated The Guardian to feature Holmes at the weekend. Some excerpts convey the personal learning that ensued from the accident, and the deepening of his character:

“I knew straight away,” Holmes says, 14 years later. “I knew I’d broken my neck. I was fully conscious.” He had hit the wall at pace and with such brutality that he was left flopping, like a puppet whose strings had been cut. 

After the initial reports about the accident, little was heard about David Holmes. There were no dramatic fallouts, public recriminations, high-profile legal battles. Holmes quietly – and sometimes not so quietly – tried to rebuild his life. Today, the 40-year-old is paralysed from the chest down and lives with four full-time carers. He is wiser and calmer, but in other ways he is little changed.  

Young David was particularly talented, and loved gymnastics: “The greatest sport in the world.” By 13, he was performing in national competitions and hoped to represent Britain at the Olympics. But at school he was bullied for his size: “It’s hard growing up a small bloke. You’re an easy target. I was called ‘titch’ and ‘pipsqueak’, and stuffed in lockers. Gymnastics was my safe space because I was around other gymnasts who were also small.” 

At 14 he was spotted by a stunt manager; at 17, in 2000, he had turned professional and was working as Radcliffe’s stunt double in Harry Potter. In January 2009, Holmes' life changed dramatically:

So stunt coordinators just added weights on the pulley system to enhance the action? “Yes. I’m not going to go into any more detail. The repercussions from my accident mean nobody will be put in that situation again. And that’s enough for me. It’s much more sophisticated and controlled now.”

That legacy of greater safety within the film industry gives Holmes great satisfaction. A second matter that buoys him is that by the time of the accident Radcliffe had become a friend, a friendship that continues today.

Both those elements figure in a film made about how Holmes handled the aftermath of the accident. The film, David Holmes: The Boy Who Lived, screened on TV in Britain and is available on HBO. 

“Listen, thankfully for me, because of this film, my legacy on camera is not now me just hitting that wall 14 years ago. Maybe people will take some positives from the way I handled it, hopefully with a bit of dignity – even though all the dignity is taken away.” Among other things, the accident left him with terrible PTSD. “I’d hear the noise in my head of the crunching of my spinal cord. That would happen as I was falling asleep.”

Through the darkness Holmes called on his sense of humour for relief. One other aspect of his character he counts as a boon during the hard times is that he can recognise that the plight of others can put them in a far worse state than himself:

In hospital, despite being paralysed, he again began to feel he was lucky. “I was a stuntman, I did a risky job, and I was put in a ward with two boys who were there because of hate. One was caught up in the Mumbai terrorist attack – he’s now one of my best friends, Will Pike. The other boy, Oliver Hemsley, was walking on the road in Whitechapel and he was stabbed in the neck and the chest because he’s gay. Then they kicked a bottle of gin into his chest and he had to have his heart taken out [temporarily, and massaged]. They urinated on him as well. So I met real victims. Granted, it was not my fault, but it was a stunt accident and I did that job and I had to accept the risks. No stuntman should ever be doing that job unless you fully accept the risks.” 

Holmes tells me how lucky he is in other ways – to own the house, to have sufficient money through the insurance settlement, to have great friends and support. But he knows in the greater scheme he is anything but lucky. He has rarely talked publicly about what happened to him, and how it has changed his life, but today he makes it clear he doesn’t want to sanitise anything. He campaigns for those who have suffered spinal cord injuries and part of being a campaigner is showing the world what it means to live with such an injury.

In one way, Holmes adapted astonishingly well to his disability – designing his new home from the hospital bed, comforting loved ones, telling his mother there was no point in being angry or bitter. 

Even though he knew he couldn’t return to work, he refused to accept that he had to change his lifestyle after the accident. He talks about a lost decade, then decides “lost” isn’t quite the right word. “It was a decade of decadence and fun. I’d say I wasn’t grown up enough. The thrills I used to get setting myself on fire and jumping off buildings, I was just trying to find that in the way I could.” Such as? “I’d take groups of people to Ibiza and blow thousands of pounds.” He travelled the world, drove ridiculously fast customised cars he could control with his hands, partied, drank and took drugs. “I was fortunate to have those experiences, but I wasn’t really dealing with this. I was putting it on the back burner and not accepting my disability for what it is, which is a life-changing thing.” 

This is where he makes the comment that he has matured enough to make the most of his situation, to forsake a fast and furious lifestyle possible even when disabled, and this maturity allows him to focus on what is important in life.

That maturity also allows Holmes to display a wonderful generosity, drawing the Guardian writer's appreciation. That concern for others is now deeply etched in his character is clear, for one thing, because "Holmes is talking to JK Rowling about introducing a wizard in a wheelchair in the forthcoming Harry Potter TV series." For another, he is intent on ensuring that more devices appear that add to the quality of life of quadriplegics. Third, he produced a podcast series that raised the profile of  stunt people. He also working on drawing together a group who would launch a school to train young Black people for a role in the movie industry.

David Holmes faces the prospect of a shortened life, the Guardian feature states, but he is clearly intent on courageously making the most of his situation, on rising above his material circumstances to make an impact to benefit people who need a helping hand. Truly, he is displaying all the marks of a man.

Joining mothers in push for work-life balance

Contending with “outdated and toxic attitudes around motherhood” 

This is where activists' energy should be invested the most—creating a set of conditions that give mothers and children the greatest opportunity to flourish. In each society parents act on behalf of the whole to contribute new life. A buoyant future, stability in life ensue as the culture's most honoured values are cultivated among the young and deposited in their care as a treasured legacy.

But each society has to act as whole to ensure that the time and money necessary for parents to raise a child are available. Unfortunately, in industrialised socieites there is a lot of mis-directed energy where the political and corporate axis has been captured by a fashionable academic theory. As a consequence, the needs of families, and working people as a whole, are ignored. The fashionable activism so evident in service of cultish ideologies demands far less courage than does the raw fight for solidarity and the sharing of resources, for the tethering of the economic inequality that is running wild.

The Guardian website gives yet further evidence of the neglect of families in rich societies, this time referring to the United Kingdom:

About a quarter of a million mothers with young children have left their jobs because of difficulties with balancing work and childcare, according to a report by an equal rights charity that calls for the end of the “motherhood penalty”.

This juggling act, as well as the punitive cost, has led more than 249,124 working mothers of children aged four or under to leave their employer, according to the Fawcett Society.

A lack of flexible working arrangements and affordable childcare combined with “outdated and toxic attitudes around motherhood” were holding women back, said its chief executive, Jemima Olchawski.

Its survey of 3,000 working parents of preschoolers, conducted jointly with the recruitment firm Totaljobs, revealed that one in five working mothers had considered leaving their job because of the difficulties of balancing work and childcare. One in 10 had handed in their notice because of this, rising to 13% of single mothers.

It's not just mothers who are in this bind:

Alongside the mothers exiting the workforce, the poll also revealed that three out of four working parents have had to take unpaid leave becuase of childcare responsibilities, with higher rates for women from non-white backgrounds and single mothers.

Jane Lorigan, the chief executive of Totaljobs, pointed to critical labour shortages in the economy and warned that the pressures of childcare could ultimately have a longer-term impact on an ever-shrinking workforce.

“There are more mothers in the workplace than ever before, and businesses need to create an environment where they can flourish,” said Lorigan. “Not only do working parents need more support, but we need to ensure this support extends to the people who need it the most.”

The business sector, the government, but also a receptive attitude for change within the overall society must come together to enable a will for support for families to be enacted in reality. Otherwise, the populations of industrialised countries will collapse, as in most parts of Europe, including Russia, as well as South Korea, Japan, and most recently China. 

To a large extent, couples want children but the social and economic support is lacking as individualism and a general nihilistic mindframe take a greater hold.

However, some optimism arises by way of, first, the work-at-home routine necessitated by the Covid pandemic. The pressure from management for all employees to return to the office needs to tbe tempered by consideration for the needs of parents. The other spark of hope for a more human working arrangement, on a par with the 8-hour work day push in its day, is the pressure that is building, because of the mounting evidence of fruitful results, for a four-day working week, at the same level of pay. These are areas where activism would have truly beneficial outcomes rather than in pursuing the trendy issues of the day. 

Ω See also: Marriage disappearing in Britain

Ω See also: Four-day work week on a roll

Ω Leave a comment and, if you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified by email when a new post is published.

Beauty: A door to another world

A bright star at the center of NGC 3132, Southern Nebula Ring, viewed by Nasa's Webb Telescope. See in full below.

God is a better everything than we are; therefore, He is also a better artist. That is why nature provides such heartbreaking beauties: sunsets, storms, seas, mountains (Fuji to the Japanese, the Matterhorn to the Swiss). These heartbreaks are usually milder than those brought on by poetry or music, probably because nature is slower, less sudden, and less surprising.

But hearts do leap suddenly into throats when an impossibly glorious vista suddenly appears around a corner or from behind a cloud. This, too, is largely personal, but not wholly: everyone loves stars, seas, and sunsets, and no one gets misty-eyed over worms. (I foresee getting an angry letter from a worm lover and forestall it by admitting that there is indeed a glory even there. I draw the line between art and non-art only where God does, i.e., nowhere.)

For me it is a great crashing wave of the sea that melts and glues my soul to it. (See my The Sea Within.) For many, it is a woman’s face. (This is not an erotic but an aesthetic falling-in-love.) For Dante, it was Beatrice, whom he saw, not as an entity in the world like other entities, but as something like a hole in the world through which the light of Heaven shone. Dante’s door in the world’s walls was shaped like Beatrice. (See Charles Williams, The Figure of Beatrice, and Mary McDermott Shidler’s The Theology of Romantic Love.) 

What was said of cathedrals above could be said of Beatrice, too, and vice versa. They are not merely things in this world but doors to another. They seem to the lover to be not natives to this world but otherworldly visitors. The Iroquois called the quality such visitors emit orenda. They found it especially in rivers, oceans, stars, trees, and mountains. It is the spiritual sugar that lures us to places we cannot live in but only look at and love. 

The wonder and awe can also come from the discoveries of science, especially astronomy and astrophysics, as well as genetics and cell biology; from the astonishing and often literally unimaginable picture of the universe and the human body and brain that it reveals. Surely the most magnificent work of art of all is the universe itself: endlessly mysterious yet perfect in its order, even in its mathematical harmonies. As Edna St. Vincent Millay wrote: “Euclid alone has looked on beauty bare.”

Ω From: Doors in the Walls of the World: Signs of Transcendence in the Human Story  by Peter Kreeft.

While prominent when viewed by Nasa's Webb Telescope in near-infrared light, the bright star at the center of NGC 3132, Southern Nebula Ring, plays only a supporting role in sculpting the surrounding nebula. A second star, barely visible at lower left along one of the bright star's diffraction spikes, is the nebula's source. It has ejected at least eight layers of gas and dust over thousands of years. Credit: Nasa, ESA, CSA, STScI

Ω Leave a comment and, if you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified by email when a new post is published.

Jesus is God, as Paul makes clear

The topic of the divinity of Jesus is a favourite stomping ground for the kind of biblical scholars who think it their duty to dismiss the transcendent from the text. But such stalwarts of the academic critical form establishment leave a sterile legacy. Fortunately—shall we say providentially?—biblical scholarship does not begin and end at the doors of the institutions that follow reductionist scientism up the blind alley of their own making.

A rich vein of biblical scholarship that enjoys delving into the legacy of the Church can be found in study Bibles from reputable publishers, and in commentaries such as The International Bible Commentary (1998) and the New Jerome Biblical Commentary (1990).

Consider Romans 9:1-5. The final sentence is an important one as we seek clarity as to how the early Church grew in understanding of the width and length, height and depth, of the nature of the one who was man but not a human being, who had dwelt among them. Paul says with a swelling exultation:

I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying, as my conscience bears witness for me through the Holy Spirit  that I have great sorrow and unending anguish in my heart. I would even be willing to be accursed, cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren who are my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites who have the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the Law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, came the Christ, God forever, who is over all. Amen.

Speaking of Christ’s origins and his relationship with the Father arising from the last sentence in the reading, the Jerusalem Bible comments: 

Both the context and the internal development of the sentence imply that this doxology is addressed to Christ. Paul rarely gives Jesus the title ‘God’, though cf. Titus 2:13, or addresses a doxology to him, cf. Hebrews 13:21, but this is because he usually keeps this title for the Father cf. Romans 15:6 etc., and considers the divine persons not so much with an abstract appreciation of their nature as with a concrete appreciation of their functions in the process of salvation. Moreover, he has always in mind the historical Christ in his concrete reality as God made man cf. Philippians 2:5+; Colossians 1:15+. For this reason he presents Christ, 1 Corinthians 3:23; 11:3, as subordinated to the Father, not only in the work of creation, 1 Corinthians 8:6, but also in that of eschatological renewal, 1 Corinthians 15:27f; cf. Romans 16:27 etc..

Nevertheless, the title ‘Lord’, Kyrios, received by Christ at his resurrection, is the title given by the Septuagint [the Greek translation of the Old Testament] to Yahweh in the Old Testament, Romans 10:9, 13; 1 Corinthians 2:16. For Paul, Jesus is essentially ‘the Son of God’, Romans 1:3-4, 9; 5:10; 8:29; 1 Corintinans 1:9;15:28; 2 Corinthians 1:19; Galatians 1:16; 2:20; 4:4-6; Ephesians 4:13; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; cf Hebrews 4:14, etc. his ‘own Son’, Romans 8:3, 32, ‘the son of his love’, Colossians 1:13, who belongs to the sphere of the divine by right, the sphere from which he came, 1 Corinthians 15:47, being sent by God, Romans 8:3; Galatians 4:4. The title ‘Son of God’ became his in a new way with the resurrection, Romans 1:4+; cf. Hebrews 1:5; 5:5, , but it was not then he received it since he pre-existed not only as prefigured in the Old Testament, 1 Corinthians 10:4, but ontologically, 2 Philippians 2:6; cf. 2 Corinthians 8:9. He is the Wisdom, 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30, and the Image, 2 Corinthians 4:4, by which and in which all things were created Colossians 1:15-17; cf. Hebrews 1:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6, and have been re-created, Romans 8:29; cf. Colossians 3:10; 1:18-20, because into his own person is gathered the fullness of the godhead and of the universe, Colossians 2:9+. In him God has devised the whole plan of salvation, Ephesians 1:3f, and he, no less than the Father, is its accomplishment (cf. Romans 11:36; 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Colossians 1:16-20). The Father raises to life and judges, so does the Son raise to life (cf. Romans 1:4+; 8:11+ and Philippians 3:21) and judge (cf. Romans 2:16 and 1 Corinthians 4:5; Romans 14:10 and 2 Corinthians 5:10). In short, he is one of the three Persons enumerated in the Trinitarian formulae, 2 Corinthians 13:13+.

The importance of scholarship in support of the truth has been witnessed by the Church's investment of resources, especially its human talent. In the case of the text above, scholars can tell us that it is less likely that Paul intended his final words to be:  “came the Christ. God who is over all be praised. Amen." All is well as long as scholars seek the truth, rather than playing rhetorical games to impress their academic peers. It's clear there is a delight in the exercise of form criticism but little interest in taking a critical stance to that particular form of critically studying a text of significance. 

One reviewer of Bart Ehrman's works has this to say:

This is just one example of Ehrman’s practice of either: (1) inaccurately conveying what the Bible says; (2) accurately conveying what the Bible says, then declaring it’s wrong; (3) arguing the text really doesn’t say what Christians believe it says (why does that matter if what it really says is also wrong?); and (4) citing Scripture in support of his contentions, even though he regularly dismisses Scripture’s validity. 

Another who finds modern reductionist text criticism a barren exterprise offers this thought:

Put simply, the skepticism of Bultmann, Borg, Crossan and Ehrman is out of date. New discoveries have pushed scholarship beyond their fanciful theories and dubious conclusions. The new wave of New Testament scholars readily accept the positive findings of a century’s worth of research, but in the spirit of true scholarship, they have also learned how to be critical of the critics. 

That alternative modus operandi in biblical scholarship is laid out here, describing a new wave of studies that seek the truth in all its dimensions. Go here for one source of balanced scholarship.

Ω Leave a comment and, if you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified by email when a new post is published.

Francis: rethink human power, its meaning and its limits

Photo from PxHere

Pope Francis will spend three days at the top-level COP28 climate conference at Dubai, which starts at the end of this month. His latest letter to the world on the climate crisis presents a bleak vision of planet earth as our home, and offers a depth of insight into how to regain the sensitivity to creation the industrialised world lost long ago. Francis titled this letter Laudate Deum, which means "Thanks be to God", and dates it October 4, the feast day of Francis of Assisi.

His first paragraph is this:

“Praise God for all his creatures”. This was the message that Saint Francis of Assisi proclaimed by his life, his canticles and all his actions. In this way, he accepted the invitation of the biblical Psalms and reflected the sensitivity of Jesus before the creatures of his Father: “Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these” (Matthew 6:28-29). “Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten in God’s sight” (Luke 12:6). How can we not admire this tenderness of Jesus for all the beings that accompany us along the way! 

Francis dwells on that need for a fresh set of eyes:

Eight years have passed since I published the Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’, when I wanted to share with all of you, my brothers and sisters of our suffering planet, my heartfelt concerns about the care of our common home. Yet, with the passage of time, I have realized that our responses have not been adequate, while the world in which we live is collapsing and may be nearing the breaking point. In addition to this possibility, it is indubitable that the impact of climate change will increasingly prejudice the lives and families of many persons. We will feel its effects in the areas of healthcare, sources of employment, access to resources, housing, forced migrations, etc.

The hard-headed drive for a certain kind of development, that where the sole purpose is for the rich to become richer, has been a fundamental mistake in human history:

 In Laudato Si’, I offered a brief resumé of the technocratic paradigm underlying the current process of environmental decay. It is “a certain way of understanding human life and activity [that] has gone awry, to the serious detriment of the world around us”. Deep down, it consists in thinking “as if reality, goodness and truth automatically flow from technological and economic power as such”. As a logical consequence, it then becomes easy “to accept the idea of infinite or unlimited growth, which proves so attractive to economists, financiers and experts in technology”.

It is chilling to realize that the capacities expanded by technology “have given those with the knowledge and especially the economic resources to use them, an impressive dominance over the whole of humanity and the entire world. Never has humanity had such power over itself, yet nothing ensures that it will be used wisely, particularly when we consider how it is currently being used… In whose hands does all this power lie, or will it eventually end up? It is extremely risky for a small part of humanity to have it”.  

[...] a healthy ecology is also the result of interaction between human beings and the environment, as occurs in the indigenous cultures and has occurred for centuries in different regions of the earth. Human groupings have often “created” an environment, reshaping it in some way without destroying it or endangering it. The great present-day problem is that the technocratic paradigm has destroyed that healthy and harmonious relationship. In any event, the indispensable need to move beyond that paradigm, so damaging and destructive, will not be found in a denial of the human being, but include the interaction of natural systems “with social systems”. 

We need to rethink among other things the question of human power, its meaning and its limits. For our power has frenetically increased in a few decades. We have made impressive and awesome technological advances, and we have not realized that at the same time we have turned into highly dangerous beings, capable of threatening the lives of many beings and our own survival. Today it is worth repeating the ironic comment of Solovyov* about an “age which was so advanced as to be actually the last one”.  We need lucidity and honesty in order to recognize in time that our power and the progress we are producing are turning against us. 

Ultimately, we must set goals that rise above the human fault of seeking above all wealth, power and self-interest. Focusing on care for the earth and concern for its inhabitants requires deep change:

In conscience, and with an eye to the children who will pay for the harm done by their actions, the question of meaning inevitably arises: “What is the meaning of my life? What is the meaning of my time on this earth? And what is the ultimate meaning of all my work and effort?” 

The spiritual dimension of our existence on this planet also needs to be recognised:

The Bible tells us: “God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good” (Gen 1:31). His is “the earth with all that is in it” (Deut 10:14). For this reason, he tells us that, “the land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; with me you are but aliens and tenants” (Lev 25:23). Hence, “responsibility for God’s earth means that human beings, endowed with intelligence, must respect the laws of nature and the delicate equilibria existing between the creatures of this world”. 

The Judaeo-Christian vision of the cosmos defends the unique and central value of the human being amid the marvellous concert of all God’s creatures, but today we see ourselves forced to realize that it is only possible to sustain a “situated anthropocentrism”. To recognize, in other words, that human life is incomprehensible and unsustainable without other creatures. For “as part of the universe… all of us are linked by unseen bonds and together form a kind of universal family, a sublime communion which fills us with a sacred, affectionate and humble respect.”

Francis has called on the powerful conglomerates and nations to cease and desist their present environmentally destructive and socially harmful roles and to start afresh to achieve a whole-world rescue effort as the impact of climate change bears down on us. But he also speaks of the individual person and the household as having central roles, There is, he says:

[...] the need to realize that there are no lasting changes without cultural changes, without a maturing of lifestyles and convictions within societies, and there are no cultural changes without personal changes.

Efforts by households to reduce pollution and waste, and to consume with prudence, are creating a new culture. The mere fact that personal, family and community habits are changing is contributing to greater concern about the unfulfilled responsibilities of the political sectors and indignation at the lack of interest shown by the powerful. Let us realize, then, that even though this does not immediately produce a notable effect from the quantitative standpoint, we are helping to bring about large processes of transformation rising from deep within society. 

In closing, Francis states that the criteria for decision-making at all levels must involve the exercise of the human family's spiritual capacity:

[...] we can state that a broad change in the irresponsible lifestyle connected with the Western model would have a significant long-term impact. As a result, along with indispensable political decisions, we would be making progress along the way to genuine care for one another. 

[...] when human beings claim to take God’s place, they become their own worst enemies.

Ω Whereas this post treats Francis's insights into the spiritual motivations we need to preserve our common home, an earlier post gives a general summary of this letter to all people of good will.   

*From The Pillar:

But perhaps the quirkiest reference is to the Russian writer Vladimir Solovyov’s apocalyptic A Short Story of the Anti-Christ. The story, published in 1900, imagines the emergence of an Antichrist who establishes himself as a global authority and seeks dominion over Christians worldwide, but faces heroic resistance from Church leaders and is ultimately vanquished by Christ. The pope doesn’t delve into the story’s plot in Laudate Deum, but limits himself to quoting Solovyov’s “ironic comment” about an “age which was so advanced as to be actually the last one.” 

Ω Leave a comment and, if you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified by email when a new post is published.