Feed the hungry, shelter the homeless...

The Corporal Works of Mercy are found in the teachings of Jesus and give us a model for how we should treat all others.  They are charitable actions by which we help our neighbors in their bodily needs. They respond to the basic needs of humanity as we journey together through this life. 

They comprise one way of putting faith into action. They are a means of increasing our understanding of how God is among us, so that the poor and needy are more clearly seen as Christ himself as in Matthew 25:31. The seven Corporal Works of Mercy are listed below.  After each work of mercy there are also suggestions and words of advice for living them out in our daily lives.  

Feed the hungry

There are many people in this world who go without food.  When so much of our food goes to waste, consider how good stewardship practices of your own food habits can benefit others who do not have those same resources.

Having delicious food at Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner? Donate to a Thanksgiving or Christmas food drive so everyone can have something to eat.

Research, identify and contribute financially to organizations that serve the hungry.

The next time you make a recipe that can be easily frozen, make a double batch and donate one to your local food pantry or soup kitchen. 

Try not to purchase more food than you are able to eat. If you notice that you end up throwing groceries away each week, purchasing less groceries would eliminate waste and allow you to donate the savings to those in need.

Give drink to the thirsty

Many people locally and afar do not have access to clean water and suffer from the lack of this basic necessity.  We should support the efforts of those working towards greater accessibility of this essential resource.  

Donate to help build wells for water for those in need

Organize a group of children involved on a sports team (e.g. soccer) or a summer camp. Invite them to collect bottled water to distribute at a shelter for families. If parents can be involved, ask them to accompany their children in delivering the water to the families. 

Do the same for youth and young adult groups.

Make an effort not to waste water. Remembering to turn off the water faucet when you are brushing your teeth or washing dishes can help, especially in regions suffering from drought.

Shelter the homeless

There are many circumstances that could lead to someone becoming a person without a home.  Community and political action to respond to the upsurge in homelessness in many places needs our contribution of time and talent. Those without homes can discover through us the love of Jesus, as we, or our representatives, affirm their worth and help in seeking a resolution to the challenges they face.

See if your parish or diocese is involved with a local homeless shelter and volunteer.

Donate time or money to organizations that build homes for those who need shelter.

Many homeless shelters need warm blankets for their beds. If you can knit or sew that would be an extra loving gift.

There are millions of children and families who are on the move, fleeing from war, illness, hunger and impossible living conditions, and searching for peace and safety. Engage parish groups of children, youth, young adults, and families in doing some research on the causes and challenges that these families face to survive.

Seek ways to provide shelter for the homeless locally, regionally, nationally or internationally.

Visit the sick

Those who are sick are often forgotten or avoided.  In spite of their illness, these individuals still have much to offer to those who take the time to visit and comfort them.

Give blood

Spend time volunteering at a nursing home – Get creative and make use of your talents (e.g. sing, read, paint, call Bingo, etc.)!

Take time on a Saturday to stop and visit with an elderly neighbor.

Offer to assist caregivers of chronically sick family members on a one-time or periodic basis. Give caregivers time off from their caregiving responsibilities so they can rest, complete personal chores, or enjoy a relaxing break.

Next time you make a meal that can be easily frozen, make a double batch and give it to a family in your parish who has a sick loved one.

Visit prisoners

People in prison are still people, made in the image and likeness of God.  No matter what someone has done, they deserve to know the love of  God and the power of His word.

See if your parish, or a nearby parish, has a prison ministry and if so, get involved.

Volunteer to help out or donate to charities that give Christmas presents to children whose parents are in prison.

Bury the dead

Funerals give us the opportunity to grieve and show others support during difficult times.  Through our prayers and actions during these times we show our respect for life, which is always a gift from God, and comfort to those who mourn.

Send a card to someone who has recently lost a loved one.  Make your own card and use some of these prayers.

Visit the cemetery and pray for those you have lost.

Spend time planning your own funeral, with a focus on finding our hope in the Resurrection.

Give alms to the poor

Donate money to organizations that have the ability to provide support and services for those in need.  Do research and find organizations that put people in need first, rather than profit. Don't forget to help the people God puts in front of you.

Skip the morning latte and put that money in funds devoted to helping the poor.

Find a charity that is meaningful to you and volunteer your time or donate to it. 

During Lent, or at a specified time suitable for your family, give up eating out at restaurants.  Pack your meal and donate the extra money to charities.

Participate in international charities.

Ω Adapted from a resource prepared by the United States Catholic Bishops. See the original here. 

Ω Leave a comment and, if you like this blog, read the same posts at my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.

To wonder is to fully enter the living world

Over cities and towns, just like one "That floats on high o'er vales and hills". 

Delightful originality in the bunching and shading. What can you see in the shapes?

It's time to look upward and to enjoy the gift.

Goethe knew it when he exclaimed: “I am here, that I may wonder!” In the same spirit, Hermann Hesse writes:

Wonder is where it starts, and though wonder is also where it ends, this is no futile path. Whether admiring a patch of moss, a crystal, flower, or golden beetle, a sky full of clouds, a sea with the serene, vast sigh of its swells, or a butterfly wing with its arrangement of crystalline ribs, contours, and the vibrant bezel of its edges, the diverse scripts and ornamentations of its markings, and the infinite, sweet, delightfully inspired transitions and shadings of its colors — whenever I experience part of nature, whether with my eyes or another of the five senses, whenever I feel drawn in, enchanted, opening myself momentarily to its existence and epiphanies, that very moment allows me to forget the avaricious, blind world of human need, and rather than thinking or issuing orders, rather than acquiring or exploiting, fighting or organizing, all I do in that moment is “wonder,” like Goethe, and not only does this wonderment establish my brotherhood with him, other poets, and sages, it also makes me a brother to those wondrous things I behold and experience as the living world: butterflies and moths, beetles, clouds, rivers and mountains, because while wandering down the path of wonder, I briefly escape the world of separation and enter the world of unity.

This is how the natural religion  and the “responsibility to awe” which spring from opening our hearts to all that the world is are stepping stones to a deeper understanding of creation as a gift from God, who in it declares a loving presence as part of an eternal relationship. 

One thing more:

Ω My thanks to Maria Popova for inspiring this reflection. Read her piece in full here.  Sign up to enjoy and support her artistic endeavours.

Ω Enjoy also: Canticle of Brother Sun and Sister Moon, Francis of Assisi

Ω Leave a comment and, if you like this blog, read the same posts at my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.

Critical Theory: The Roots of Wokeness revisited ....... Will this Wokeist era change things?

It's never too late to learn about what we are getting ourselves into. Although, in this case, that statement is not quite accurate because it's not "we ourselves" who are the principals involved but it's a group of philosophers and academics who have picked up a trendy train of thought and run with it in all directions, so harming social institutions and personal lives by trying to impose a whole new culture.

The British-born American journalist and political and social commentator, Andrew Sullivan, is one who has stoutly opposed this trendy attempt to foist a new regime on society, noting the outbreak of a new kind of language in mainstream American media in the mid-2010s: "Here’s a list of the most successful neologisms: non-binary, toxic masculinity, white supremacy, traumatizing, queer, transphobia, whiteness, mansplaining. And here are a few that were rising in frequency in the last decade but only took off in the last few years: triggering, hurtful, gender, stereotypes."

As to the ominous nature of this explosion of new terms, Sullivan writes: "Maybe some of these terms will stick around. But the linguistic changes have occurred so rapidly, and touched so many topics, that it has all the appearance of a top-down re-ordering of language, rather than a slow, organic evolution from below."

Then comes his anguished observation:

We need to understand that all these words have one thing in common: they are products of an esoteric, academic discipline called Critical Theory, which has gained extraordinary popularity in elite education in the past few decades, and appears to have reached a cultural tipping point in the middle of the 2010s.

Most normal people have never heard of this theory—or rather an interlocking web of theories—that is nonetheless changing the very words we speak and write and the very rationale of the institutions integral to liberal democracy.

Sullivan, in his 2020 essay I am quoting from, which is entitled "The Roots of Wokeness", draws on the book Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender and Identity. He summarises the book's achievement:

What the book helps the layperson to understand is the evolution of postmodern thought since the 1960s until it became the doctrine of Social Justice today. Beginning as a critique of all grand theories of meaning—from Christianity to Marxism—postmodernism is a project to subvert the intellectual foundations of Western culture. The entire concept of reason—whether the Enlightenment version or even the ancient Socratic understanding—is a myth designed to serve the interests of those in power, and therefore deserves to be undermined and “problematized” whenever possible.

Postmodern theory does so mischievously and irreverently—even as it leaves nothing in reason’s place. The idea of objective truth—even if it is viewed as always somewhat beyond our reach—is abandoned. All we have are narratives, stories, whose meaning is entirely provisional, and can in turn be subverted or problematized.

Interlocking oppressions as key theory

The applied form of Critical Theory, termed Social Justice, taps into its Marxist ancestry in declaring that "truth was a mere function of power, and then in seeing that power used against distinct and oppressed identity groups". Sullivan explains:

The core truth of our condition, this theory argues, is that we live in a system of interlocking oppressions that penalize various identity groups in a society. And all power is zero-sum: you either have power over others or they have power over you. To the extent that men exercise power, for example, women don’t; in so far as straight people wield power, gays don’t; and so on. There is no mutually beneficial, non-zero-sum advancement in this worldview. All power is gained only through some other group’s loss.

It's worth noting that Social Justice activists have been accused of cowardice in the face of corporate power because of their abandonment of the Marxist class struggle. They have done so, as Sullivan observes, "in favor of various oppressed group identities, [....] And in this worldview, individuals only exist at all as a place where these group identities intersect. You have no independent existence outside these power dynamics. [...] An assertion of individuality is, in fact, an attack upon the group and an enabling of oppression."

This brings us to the rationale for Critical Theory's assault by means of a soft totalitarianism on the foundations of Western civilization, in fact, on those of all models of human society that offer the possibility of personal fulfillment, which Wokeism doesn't:

Just as this theory denies the individual, it also denies the universal. There are no universal truths, no objective reality, just narratives that are expressed in discourses and language that reflect one group’s power over another. There is no distinction between objective truth and subjective experience, because the former is an illusion created by the latter. So instead of an argument, you merely have an identity showdown, in which the more oppressed always wins, because that subverts the hierarchy.

These discourses of power, moreover, never end; there is no progress as such, no incremental inclusion of more and more identities into a pluralist, liberal unified project; there is the permanent reality of the oppressors and the oppressed. And all that we can do is constantly expose and eternally resist these power-structures on behalf of the oppressed.

Truth is always and only a function of power. So, for example, science has no claim on objective truth, because science itself is a cultural construct, created out of power differentials, set up by white cis straight males. And the systems of thought that white cis straight men have historically set up—like liberalism itself—perpetuate themselves, and are passed along unwittingly by people who simply respond to the incentives and traditions of thought that make up the entire power system, without being aware of it. There’s no conspiracy: we all act unknowingly in perpetuating systems of thought that oppress other groups. To be “woke” is to be “awake” to these invisible, self-reinforcing discourses, and to seek to dismantle them—in ourselves and others.

As an aside at this point in Sullivan's analysis, it seems more logical to talk about "Wokeism" rather than "Wokeness". The use of "-ism" denotes the existence of a manifesto of ideas and theories lying behind a social movement, whereas "-ness" suggests simply an alertness or concern relating to the subject under discussion. Would anyone use Marxness as a descriptor? The woke world sucks from an ideology affecting all of society. Activists seek a revolution, one affecting institutions but also complete acceptance of their definition of the nature of the human person. That's what's at play here, not a push for a mere take-it-or-leave-it change in social custom. 

Distorted view of diversity

Back to the main exposition. Attention to material reality goes by the board under the "woke" regime, and Sullivan is at his eloquent best in exposing the implications:

There is no such thing as persuasion in this paradigm, because persuasion assumes an equal relationship between two people based on reason. And there is no reason and no equality. There is only power. This is the point of telling students, for example, to “check their privilege” before opening their mouths on campus. You have to measure the power dynamic between you and the other person first of all; you do this by quickly noting your interlocutor’s place in the system of oppression, and your own, before any dialogue can occur. And if your interlocutor is lower down in the matrix of identity, your job is to defer and to listen. That’s partly why diversity at the New York Times, say, has nothing to do with a diversity of ideas.

Within critical theory, the very concept of a “diversity of ideas” is a function of oppression. What matters is a diversity of identities that can all express the same idea: that liberalism is a con-job. Which is why almost every NYT op-ed now and almost every left-leaning magazine reads exactly alike. Language is vital for Critical Theory—not as a means of persuasion but of resistance to oppressive discourses. So take the words I started with. “Non-binary” is a term for someone who subjectively feels neither male nor female. Since there is no objective truth, and since any criticism of that person’s “lived experience” is a form of traumatizing violence, that individual’s feelings are the actual fact. To subject such an idea to, say, the scrutiny of science is therefore a denial of that person’s humanity and existence.

To inquire what it means to “feel like a man”, is also unacceptable. An oppressed person’s word is always the last one. To question this reality, even to ask questions about it, is a form of oppression itself. In the rhetoric of Social Justice, it is a form of linguistic violence. Whereas using the term non-binary is a form of resistance to cis heteronormativity. One is evil; the other good.

Becoming “woke” to these power dynamics alters your perspective of reality. And so our unprecedentedly multicultural, and multiracial democracy is now described as a mere front for “white supremacy.” This is the reality of our world, the critical theorists argue, even if we cannot see it. A gay person is not an individual who makes her own mind up about the world and can have any politics or religion she wants; she is “queer,” part of an identity that interrogates and subverts heteronormativity.

A man explaining something is actually “mansplaining” it—because his authority is entirely wrapped up in his toxic identity. Questioning whether a trans woman is entirely interchangeable with a woman—or bringing up biology to distinguish between men and women—is not a mode of inquiry. It is itself a form of “transphobia”, of fear and loathing of an entire group of people and a desire to exterminate them. It’s an assault.

No respect for personal agency

Sullivan's essay is rich with ideas that have been borne out by events since he wrote it. The next quotation from it is historically pertinent: 

 For me, these theorists do something less forgivable than abuse the English language. They claim that their worldview is the only way to advance social progress, especially the rights of minorities, and that liberalism fails to do so. This, it seems to me, is profoundly untrue. A moral giant like [Black activist and politician] John Lewis advanced this country not by intimidation, or re-ordering the language, or seeing the advancement of black people as some kind of reversal for white people. He engaged the liberal system with nonviolence and persuasion, he emphasized the unifying force of love and forgiveness, he saw Black people as having agency utterly independent of white people, and changed America with that fundamentally liberal perspective.

The gay rights movement, the most successful of the 21st century, succeeded in the past through showing what straights and gays have in common, rather than seeing the two as in a zero-sum conflict, resolved by prosecuting homophobia or “queering” heterosexuality. The women’s rights movement has transformed the role of women in society in the past without demonizing all men, or seeing misogyny as somehow embedded in “white supremacy”. As we have just seen, civil rights protections for transgender people—just decided by a conservative Supreme Court—have been achieved not by seeing people as groups in constant warfare, but by seeing the dignity of the unique individual in pursuing their own happiness without the obstacle of prejudice.

Though the United States is enveloped in the most toxic display of Wokeism, this cult-like ideology has spread among the educated elite of most WEIRD countries, and the rest of the world is being ravaged  by the aggressive cultural colonialization of institutions under the hegemony of the American academic and political system. 

Moreover, though it's common to see now the fightback conducted by women, parents, consumers and political leaders, those who occupy the commanding heights of Western cultural and corporate entities will not give up lightly on their crusade. We can expect the soft totalitarianism of Wokeism to stiffen as an act of self-preservation.

Ω For those with access to Andrew Sullivan's blog on Substack, see his essay here. 

Ω Leave a comment and, if you like this blog, read the same posts at my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.  

Jesus' relentless demand and liberating power

Something that makes the weekend my favourite time of the week is the expectation of another soul-searching Sunday sermon from Bishop Robert Barron of Minnesota in the US. This time he started with:

"There is no religious figure anywhere in the religions or philosophies of the world, none, who is stranger and more demanding, more relentless and more unnerving than Jesus."

His challenge this Sunday is to accept that Jesus is God, and to respond to Jesus' invitation to love him above everything and everyone. Further, Jesus' call is for us to be conformed to him, which means being Christ in our own environment, with the result that we bring the good news of God's personal love to all those with whom we share our lives.

Join in trying to grasp the import for each of us of the uniqueness of Jesus and his "marvellous" demands as Bishop Barron wonders at just how strange and stupendous Jesus is. From the beginning:

There is no religious figure anywhere in the religions or philosophies of the world, none, who is stranger and more demanding, more relentless and more unnerving than Jesus.

I’ll say that again. There is no guru, teacher, founder, nobody, who’s as strange and relentless as Jesus. And therefore the religion attached to Jesus is the strangest of them all.

Now, I’m going to put exhibit A to you today, and it’s from our Gospel, Matthew chapter 10.

Jesus says to his Apostles, listen, “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”

Okay, let me get this straight. So the most intense loves that we have—the love of a child for parents, the love for your mother, your father, or turn it around, the love of a parent for a child, maybe that’s even more intense.

The connection that a father will feel for a daughter or son. The mother’s intensity of love for her children, having both a kind of internal quality and an external obligation.

I mean, a parent would say, “Well, this is the most important obligation of my life… I’ll give my life to protect that child.”

Think of a little kid and their love for their parents, the intensity of that connection. Think of the external obligation in that sense, going from child to parent.

When the parent gets old and infirm and needy, and the children feel legitimately this extraordinary obligation to care for their parents.

Jesus is on purpose here summoning the most powerful affect that we have in us.

But then listen to it: “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter . . . is not worthy of me.”

Now, I submit to you, everybody, the Buddha would not say this. He wouldn’t. I mean, the Buddha has teachings for us, and he’d say, “Here’s the eightfold path, and I followed it and found happiness and you can too.”

Muhammad wouldn’t say this. He’d say, “I received this revelation from the angel, and I wrote it down. It’s the Quran.”

Moses wouldn’t say this. Confucius wouldn’t say this. Aristotle wouldn’t say it. Plato wouldn’t say it. I don’t know anybody in the philosophical or religious tradition who would say such a strange thing.

But Jesus says it: Your love for me personally has to go beyond the most intense loves of your life.

“I’d happily die for this child.” Yeah, but you need to love me more than that.

Now you see the point I’m making, and why I speak of the strangeness of Christianity.

This is every bit as high a Christology [study of the nature of Jesus as the Christ] as the prologue to John: “In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God. The Word was God.. . .  The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”

We say, yeah, John’s telling us that Jesus is God. Well, Jesus is saying the same thing here, just using a somewhat different rhetorical style and symbol system.

I mean, who is the one who should be loved beyond the most intense loves you possibly have? Well, God, only God.

“Oh, Jesus, he’s a very interesting teacher. Boy, I find him a fascinating moral exemplar.” Well, that’s completely out of step with this.

You might imagine a teacher saying, “Unless you love the God that I speak of . . . , unless you love the teaching that I offer . . . .”

But he wouldn’t say this unless he himself in person were the highest good.

Let me say that again. He wouldn’t say this unless he himself in person were the very highest good.

That’s what’s at stake in Christianity. That’s what’s at stake. You can’t be neutral about this, which is precisely why the same Jesus says “the one who’s not with me is against me. Either you gather with me or you scatter.”

You have to make a decision about Jesus. That’s what he’s telling us here. This is the ethical correlate to the claim that Jesus is divine.

Okay, so you’re saying, “All right, that’s a lot to deal with. That’s a lot to take in.”

Well, he doesn’t let up. Listen as he goes on: “Whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me.”

Okay, so you’re telling me I have to love you, Lord, more than I love my own children, more than I love my own parents.

Mm-hm. That’s what I mean. That’s exactly what I mean.

And now you’re saying, unless you take up your cross every day and follow me, you’re not worthy of me.

Mm-hm. I want you to see something. Obviously, we now associate the cross, taking up the cross, with suffering, accepting the pain of life and doing so with equanimity and blitheness of spirit.

Yeah, but that’s not what he’s saying here. Like hey, when bad things happen, offer it up to God and accept it in a patient spirit.

That’s not what he’s saying. He’s saying, unless you “take up your cross.” Take up your cross. In other words, seek it out on your own. You do it. Don’t just accept it given to you from the outside. You take up the cross.

What does he mean now? Well, just as Jesus took up his cross so that he might bear the sins of the world and thereby take them away, just as he suffered the death that we were owed, just as he bore our burdens, so we are actively to bear the burdens of others.

Again, I get it [that it’s a hard saying].

Suffering happens to all of us willy-nilly, and yes indeed, we should always accept it in an attitude of patience and accepting God’s will, etc., but that’s not what he’s talking about.

He means: You who follow me, you who love me more than you love your own children, you need every day to bear other people’s burdens and to do so actively. Seek out opportunities to bear the burden of somebody else.

What if you were to begin your day that way?

Instead of saying, “Okay, how am I going to make more money today or become more popular today or become more successful today?” Instead of asking those questions, ask, “Where is someone right now who’s carrying a burden around, and what can I do to lighten it? Whose cross can I pick up the way Simon of Cyrene helped Jesus carry his cross?”

Hey, do you love me more than your own children? Yeah, I do, Lord. I’m trying to anyway. I’m trying to.

Okay, okay. Here’s the test: Are you willing every day to do this? Because if you don’t, you’re actually not worthy of me.

I’m saying it on purpose that way just to show how dramatic this is, how dramatic this is. The marvelous demand that Jesus places upon us to do what he did, to bear the burdens of others.

Now, listen to how this is summed up: “Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”

That’s the law of spiritual physics. What does it mean to ‘find your life’?

It means I’m going to get it. I’m going to grab it, make it my own. I’m going to fill up my emptiness with all these goods of the world. I’m going to find my life.

Think of how many voices you know around you who say, I made my way; I made my fortune; I established my career.

Yeah, okay, okay, okay. That’s called having your life, finding your life.

What’s going to happen? You’ll lose that. It’ll be frittered away.

But the one who “loses his life for my sake”—what’s that mean? That means the person who willingly bears the burdens of others out of love. He’ll find his life. He’ll find his life.

That’s a formula, everybody.

Love Jesus more than you love your own parents, children, and life, and then do what Jesus did, bear people’s burdens, and you’ll actually find your life.

There it is, Matthew chapter 10. You want the whole spiritual life in all of its relentless demand and liberating power? There’s where you’ll find it.

Unless you love me more than your mother, your father, your son, your daughter, your very life, you’re not worthy of me.

As far as I’m concerned, everything else in Christianity is a footnote to that.

Take time to go  to listen again to the sermon on YouTube in order to thrive on the journey through life that God set before us when he became human.  

Ω Leave a comment and, if you like this blog, read the same posts at my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.

Critical Theory: Intolerant of all except capitalism

David Rieff is a journalist and writer. He is the author, among others, of In Praise of Forgetting: Historical Memory and Its Ironies. In his Desire and Fate newsletter he invites the reader to note well how the mainstream mindset is opposed to respect for our human capability to reason, which lets the capitalist elite ride above its obligation to effect economic equality.  Rieff writes:

Sui generis. The cultural revolution sweeping across much of the rich world, with its mix of authoritarian subjectivity most radically expressed by the conviction that human beings are whatever they feel themselves to be, and by a kind of lumpen Rousseauism in which what are now called indigenous ways of seeing are taken to be at least reason’s equal and by many progressives reason’s superior, is without serious precedent.

To be sure, many of its elements have obvious antecedents. Here are four of them: Communism’s ambition to create a new kind of human being; the Chinese Cultural Revolution’s demonization of the past yoked to an insistence that people express their repudiation of it publicly; the old European fantasy that pre-modern societies were fundamentally morally innocent; and the therapeutic revolution as popularized (obviously, what Freud originally had in mind was something else entirely), fetishized an imperial self that deserved fulfillment just because it was a self, and insisted that if the story one told about oneself couldn’t be realized then one had been cheated by one oppressive order or another.

What is new is the synthesis: two seemingly incompatible world views ‒ radical individualism and the radical communitarianism we rather unsatisfactorily call identity politics ‒ easily coexisting within the same utopian narrative. But what also sets it apart is what, despite a certain amount of Marxist boilerplate that flies about in the Academe, is its absolute intolerance of everything ‒ White Supremacy, Patriarchy, heteronormativity, etc., etc. ‒ except for capitalism.

As long as the business community doffs it cap to the new cultural dispensation ‒ non-white people suddenly predominating in advertising, Pride flags at the entrances to the office towers of Fortune 500 companies, it can continue its merry way, as indeed it is doing. The woke may or may not be getting wonkier, but the rich certainly are getting richer ‒ a lot richer, in fact. This is how you can square what at first appears to be a circle: the demonization of traditional Western high culture and the most permissive attitude imaginable toward the inequalities of class.

[It's now] a world in which it is deemed worse to be offended linguistically  ‒ misgendered, micro-aggressed, traumatized by a book written in 1823 because it doesn’t have the same attitudes as yours in 2023  ‒ than to be deprived materially. What this means is that nothing in this cultural revolution will ever likely affect corporate bottom lines. The corporations understand this perfectly, of course, hence the velocity with which, much to the consternation of most of the political right, they tried on the motley of woke and found it roomy and comfortable, and fit them very well.

 The only exception to this are the radical environmentalists. Their anti-capitalism is absolutely genuine, but that is because it is the anti-capitalism of fear. When these eco-warriors glue their hands to famous paintings, or throw soup over them, their cri de coeur is to demand how people can care more about great art than the fact that the planet is burning. A woke demonstration in a gallery with great Western paintings in it (though there would be no need for one, the curators would invite them with enthusiasm and excitement) would instead deprecate the art, highlighting its links to settler colonialism, the slave trade, and the rest. And their audience, wallowing in the sheer deliciousness of their own performative virtue signaling, would be delighted, whereas when the radical Greens come calling, they are denounced as vandals.

As doubtless they are. But at least they are focused on their understanding, whether mistaken or not (in this context it makes no difference), of the factual realities of the climate crisis. They are hysterics of the fact. And the cultural revolutionaries? They are the hysterics of their feelings. It should come as no surprise, then, as to who is being tolerated, well-feted, indulged and deferred to, and who is not.

Ω Leave a comment and, if you like this blog, read the same posts at my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.

Hope looms larger than the crisis - Andy Byrd

 A letter from Andy Byrd

To the young, the wild, and the free! To the Jesus-following, Bible-loving Holy Spirit-empowered! To the compassionate, the zealous, and the servant-hearted! To the teary-eyed, the joy-filled and gritty! Now is your time! Your hour is upon you to rise up, to lead, to serve, and to lift your voices.

Some would say the crisis is insurmountable. Some would say the decline of morals has gone too far to ever recover. Many would say that secularization has virtually removed Christ from society. But those voices don't know our God. And those voices have not met you...yet.  

In the crisis hope is rising to a tipping point where the hope looms larger than the crisis. At that point volunteerism arises. A generation says, "Pick me! I will take responsibility for a mess I didn't cause. I will go. I will love. Why? Because our hope is bigger than their crisis. Our stone bigger than the giant. The trumpet blast more powerful than the fortified walls. A faithful remnant larger than a massive army." 

Hope can't be underestimated. You, surrendered to Christ, can't be underestimated.

The nations burn in our hearts! To the ends of the earth for love written on our very souls! No place too far, no journey too difficult, and no heart too hard! All are worth it! He is worth it! We are unashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power to save! And we live for a dream on His heart! That every tribe, tongue, and nation would worship before His throne. 

His dream is our dream, and our lives are His! 

 Ω Leave a comment and, if you like this blog, read the same posts at my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.

IVF: just part of the fertility industry

What about the kids who don't make it through the process?

Children are a gift. Tragically, IVF turns them into a product to be created, sold and discarded, writes Lila Rose, adding that a new satirical video is casting light on the dark and deadly reality of the fertility industry. See it here.

Rose gives a graphic account of the typical in vitro fertilization process that should make all but the most brazen person/couple think again about what length they will go to in order to attempt to have a baby:

How does IVF work?

First, multiple eggs are fertilized. These new human beings are ranked based on arbitrary criteria and only the “best” are chosen.

The rest of these babies will be destroyed, stored in a deep freeze indefinitely, or sent to a lab for experimentation purposes.

After this eugenic selection, multiple babies are implanted into a womb, either the egg donor’s or a surrogate’s.

IVF can result in triples, quadruplets, or in one case, octuplets implanting. “Selective Reduction” (abortion) is then used to reach the desired number of babies. 

In many cases, surrogate mothers have been legally required to abort the babies they are carrying because the parents decided they didn’t want the child after all.

These mothers are treated as rented wombs ‒ mere equipment used to grow a product. 

In the U.S., an estimated 1 million human lives are frozen, some for as long as 25 years. Many are abandoned by their parents. 

Others are donated to science — used in genetic engineering, stem cell research, and drug experimentation.

Eugenics, "selective reduction", surrogacy, forced abortion and the commoditization of human life are pillars of the fertility industry.

This issue is another of those matters of ethical or moral decision-making where we have to look beyond the declaration "We can do it! Put your money down here!" to the more thoughtful "Should we enter into this kind of process?"

Even though the resulting outcome is to not have a child of one's own, there is the ethical path of fostering and adopting a child in need of parents. Fortunately, the love the infertile couple wish to share can be transferred to that child in need of care.

Ω Leave a comment and, if you like this blog, read the same posts at my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.