Israelites without Duality

It has been perhaps one of the greatest blessings of my life to be surrounded by wise old men.  The wisest men I have known have also amounted to the simplest men of humble living and means.  Their advice is some of the most convicting and straightforward. Even more poignant than many of the statements, themselves, is their ironclad reasoning: “Because.”  Yet as I grow older and experience more of the world, I have come to discover that even some of the most revered sages of my youth have offered misguided advice.  Their error is not derived from malice or ignorance, but from a bono fide belief that reality was natural.  This belief is what makes the rationale of “because,” so apt and effective—“because,” is simply the short-hand way of saying, “the reason is because that is the way things are in the world;” (i.e. it follows from the Natural Law).   “Because,” may have been a sufficient and useful method in bygone days, however, falsehood (i.e. unreality, unnature) has infiltrated our lives to a startling and hypnotic degree that one would be loathe to be uncritical of the “because” explanation anymore.

            The particular piece of advice I was given as a young man which seemed harmless enough came from one of the many bosses of my past: Don Carnes.  Mr. Carnes was the Ross County Engineer and he hired me to build guardrail and pave county roads.  He is a very good and decent man.  He was very aware of why I was working for him, what I was working toward, and often would mentor me over coffee in the morning.  I remember one morning when we were drinking our sustenance that I revealed a hatching notion in my mind to drop-out of school altogether and go work at the paper-mill.  Praise God, Mr. Carnes dissuaded me from this rash, shortsighted decision.  The advice he gave me was, “Your career will be based on your mind—not on your hands.”  At that time in that context, it seemed like the right sort-of advice to give, but it was advice that echoed through my memory and my life ever since and only now am I becoming more and more aware not that I should have ever worked at the paper-mill, but that men’s lives cannot be bifurcated.

            Mr. Carnes undoubtedly told me this not because he meant to mislead me, but because it is advice that seems to follow from the way things are—the “because” factor.  You shouldn’t make a career with your hands because you won’t be able to use your brain.  This is what the world calls specialization.  But is it natural to man—is it in his nature to specialize?  I say, “No.”  Hence, I can only conclude we are living in a lie, or a dream; we are constructing an unreality that even great sages have trouble piercing. 

            Man must use his hands.  Man must use his mind.  He must be able to craft—combining his intellect with raw material to create.  That is what being creative really is.  Modernity has confused creativity with productivity—but the results are wholly different.  Being creative gives being and meaning to something that changes it through infusing one’s soul into it—it is a very intentional activity.  Being productive, conversely, is merely repetition based on rubrics, resulting in a very unintentional thing.  Productivity makes products, or produce, much like a mindless tree or vegetable.  That is why the road-side vegetable and fruit stands are called “produce” stands.  Creativity requires singularly invested interest in the stuff and result—care and love— of the particular; this is what begets Creation and creatures. 

Productivity requires only the hands.  Creativity requires both.  Insects and plants are productive.  Man was made for more—in the likeness and image of a God whose Word and Love creates and manipulates matter for good.  Man is crafted with great care and raised from the dust and very specially breathed into, distinguishing him from all the rest.  Our uniqueness is found in our very origin—we were made to make other things, just as we were made—by molding other things from the dust and depositing (or breathing) our own God-given soul and spirit into them.  Just as it was fulfilling for God to have been Creative, to relish in the goodness of His work, so it is for Man to marvel at the work of his hands and soul. 

But, this is the furthest thing from reality.  It is not surprising that men have come to regard “souls” as some sort of cult-like superstition—they are ever-packed into a church (called a factory) that preaches for the assembly to get in lines, to forget how to pray in order to remember only how to work.  No one has the time or opportunity in modern economic systems to consider their soul—it is not valuable or productive; hence, “unnecessary.”  We deprive hands of heart and we deprive hearts of hands.  You are called to be entirely dirty and sweaty, or you are not—either you are ground into the dust (forgetting you were once distinguished from it) or you are catapulted into the Platonic realm of ideals (far removed from the dust).  It is this widespread tendency which bifurcates a man as merely hands or a mind; but never both.  To be both is “inefficient” by economic standards.  However, “efficiency” meant something before economic jargon hijacked it.  It is not as though economist invented the word “efficiency”—they have only distorted it. 

The first example of “effectiveness” the world witnessed was in Genesis 1, when the Word uttered by God initiates Creation as it prompts creative results.   That is effective; that is efficiency.  If modern-day economists were alive in Genesis 1, I often wonder how they would have analyzed the situation.  Would they have charts that compelled them to hurry God into uttering more words on the First Day because it certainly didn’t take 24-hours to say something?  “Come on, Lord, you're not being productive…you're cutting into our efficiency model.  Why put off for tomorrow what you could get done today?”  Or what about the seventh-day?!  “Get up, lazy bones!  Back to work, time is money, you know!”  Or what about when they saw the particular utterance that created the gold of the earth or the diamonds?  “God, forget about what you were planning on doing—we can use this stuff.  Whadaya say you just keep uttering that word, again, and again, and again?”  It is very likely then God would have been merely a word-uttering assembly-line worker, saying exactly the same thing, over and over…

Creation cannot contort into productivity—not because it is inefficient, but because it is so proficiently efficient.  It is careful, deliberate, concerned, and especially unspecialized.  For example, in Genesis 1 (among other places) there are Three Persons who are all working on the same thing all at the same time!  (What would the bean-counting, accountant and payroll specialist say about that?!)  A Principle is using His Intellect and His Will to foster so much more than something to slap a patent or a price-tag on.  Asking man to bifurcate himself would be like asking God to trifurcate Himself.  The effectiveness of both Man and God lies in the unified nature of each.  And just like the whole divine economy is wrapped into the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity, the economy of this earth depends on the unity of the Man—body and soul, hands and mind.  And until we recognize this necessary unity, we will continue to live in a dream-world woven by the Invisible Hand of the market—a “hand” I might add that has no single, recognized “mind” guiding it.  This will produce nothing more than grabastic idiocy, as opposed to creating progress.

The Newest Addition to the "Occupy Wall Street!" Protests...

The Apple Cart

"God blessed them, saying to them, 'Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth..."

Genesis 1:28, 9:1

Elections are on the horizon.  The economy is down the tubes.  And the one glimmer of hope, the one hint that love is alive is being met with hostility and concern.  This month our planet will witness the birth of its seven-billionth living citizen.  Notice that I said “witness,” which is not the same as “welcome.”  Power-brokers are not celebrating this milestone, but instead they are relaying dire and grim predictions about the future.

            We are told that one more apple will upset the apple-cart.  Thomas Malthus may be dead, but his fretful, pessimistic visions continue to infect the souls of men who continue to spew the culture of death across the airwaves and in spilt ink.  Their agenda is to “educate” the now seven-billion people to be “conscious” of “fertility methods.”  This is a little baffling considering that they are promoting self-centered calculations (hence, not educational) meant to make us oblivious (hence, not conscious) of our human nature, which includes fertility (a method called forming a family).  Infertility is no more a “fertility method,” than being inhumane is an acceptable form of “humanity.” 

            What is most striking about these folks is that they are advocating a position of self-denial.  I have always hated that hyphenated word because it is so prone to abuse.  Self-denial, in my mind, is a very negative term.  Most people render an understanding of that word as denying yourself.  However, selves are real things.  You are something.  And because you are something you must be preserved as that sort of thing and arrive at your potential as that sort of thing.  This requires you pay a certain amount of attention to yourself.  Self-denial is a misguided asceticism that circumvents the natural law.  Selfish-denial, however, would be a much more aptly positive term—meaning that we deny selfish tendencies.  Understanding the difference between being human (a self) and being hedonistic and individualistic (selfish) are important distinctions.  And what our Malthusian friends are advocating is a self-denial so that they don’t have to advocate for a selfish-denial.  Their self-denial is not espoused because they embrace ascetic or penitential lifestyles; rather it is espoused precisely because they do not embrace such lifestyles. 

            The sin of every Malthusian is the same—they ever fret about the apple cart being upset because of too many apples.  I would humbly suggest that instead looking at the sum total of units making up the cargo that they look at the net weight of some of the cargo units and the ricketiness of the apple cart.  Maybe it is falling apart not because there are too many apples but because some of the apples are the size of pumpkins or because the makers of the apple cart were shoddy craftsmen.  But, alas, they seem to assume without inspection that there is no such thing as an obese apple or a faulty cart—it is always just the number of apples.

            I demand they inspect the cargo units.  I demand they inspect the cart.  What they will find is what they fear the most—not that the population is upsetting the apple cart, but that sin is.  What they will find, if they would shut up long enough about the total numbers is that there would be plenty of room for another bushel of apples if many of the apples weren’t so large.  They would find that the platform of the apple cart could support plenty more bushel baskets if the carriage of the cart were properly built and weight were evenly-distributed.  But very few apples, like people, will be willing to admit that they are fat; least of all grossly obese.  Very few apple-cart builders, like power-brokers, will be willing to admit they have made a mistake in construction; least of all one that rises to the level of gross-incompetence.

            So, because one fat apple wants to be uncritical of itself, it will instead divert the attention to the most recently added bushel basket.  It is their fault for being born, and it is now the responsibility of every apple not to loose weight, but to stop making seeds (which apples quite naturally do).  The mantra: Deny your selves to maintain your selfishness!  Why not: Deny your selfishness to maintain your selves?!  The wreckage of the apple cart is the lack of introspection and the proliferation of personal sin.  Straws don’t break camels’ backs and apples don’t upset apple carts.  People do not upset ecology.  What does break camels’ backs is abuse.  What does upset apple carts is imbalance.  What does upset ecology is sin.  Being fertile is no more a sin than being human; and having children is not a sin.  Being a self is quite within your purview as a creature made in the likeness and image of God.  Being selfish, however, that is a sin.  And that’s is to blame for the Malthusians’ fears.  Perhaps, then, that is where they ought start pointing the finger…

            In the meantime: “Happy Birthday!” wishes to our seven-billionth brother or sister.  Hooray!    

The Technical God is Dead.

"When man is fragmentary and no longer integrated, it is no wonder in the endless crisis of our own disordering that men snatch at tendered pancreas-vitamin pills for the body and quack religions for the soul.  We are so used to a ready-made world that many ask for a ready-made religion to save their souls and even to comfort their bodies."
-Viscount Lymington


I read an article yesterday that perplexed and perturbed me simultaneously.  I assure you that it was not because the author struck an American nerve when he claimed that America was “slowing down,” “going soft,” and losing her “edge.”  No, he would be hard-pressed to rouse a patriot in this man’s heart.  Rather, it was his explanation for the claim that fueled my indignation.  America’s plight, he said, was due to her abandonment of her Protestant roots—roots the author described as fostering a “strong work ethic” and an ability to cope with “delayed gratification.”  What rubbish!  The reason that America is going down the tubes isn’t because it has abandoned her Protestant roots, but, in fact, because she has ever-embraced them!  She hasn’t lost her edge or her work ethic because she is no longer Protestant, but because she is a full-blown Protestant.  If ever the evils and ills of this world could be attributed to any one factor it would be precisely and unequivocably the world’s lackluster passionate embrace with the vile theology of John Calvin.

           

           If ever there was a more dangerous situation than the Devil using Scripture to coerce the world into its own demise, it would have to be when he hijacks theology for a diabolic pursuit.  This is what the former Angel of Light did through his agent, John Calvin, in my humble opinion.  Some say I am too hard on Calvinists.  Maybe.  However, I am convinced of two things concerning this critique: first, that I certainly have much to do to grow in charity regarding these folks; and, second, that the world has much to do to grow evermore critical of these folks.  Where I must retreat, the world must advance.  My contempt is likely compounded by the world’s complacency.  Therefore, as I resolve to do better through love, I invite the world to do better through critical judgment.

            What I find so bitter about the so-called “Protestant work ethic,” is what it represents.  Remember how Protestants began their whole destructive theology—the rejection of “works,” by the general confession, “Faith alone.”  It certainly seems odd to grapple with Protestants having a work ethic at all, in light of their “new-and-improved” “theological” “revelation,” but they do.  It would make more sense to imagine Protestants becoming on-the-spot contemplative Trappists who hit their knees immediately and begin reading the Bible, over and over.  But they don’t.  They continue to work.  And they continue to work hard.  The reason they do is telling.  At about the same time that Work was divorced from Faith, the question of destiny was found frolicking to the forefront of the theological debate.  It is here that Satan struck a mighty blow as the pump was already primed and his platform already erected.  He had but to step-out.  He did.  Over the past five centuries he has managed to kick-up a deadly frightening pace. 

            With Luther, Work was not abolished, but merely divorced from Faith.  Work was rejected as having any moral or eternal significance, whatsoever.  This half-baked theory made work a merely ‘technical’ endeavor.  Until this schism, the whole life of man had moral and eternal significance; but now, it appeared there was a part of man’s life that didn’t really matter—a “minor technical part” which quickly develops that carefree and ho-hum character which technicalities often foster.  Finding his footing, the Accuser steps in, continuing to promote the “technical view” of man’s existence—a view which creeps further and further into the heart and life of each individual—even into the life of God, at least, according to John Calvin.

            A god that damns and saves before the soul is even brought into the world is the pinnacle of technicality.  Calvin’s god has no basis upon which to form this eternal judgment except his own musing or mood.  He pulls one of two levers for each soul, damning and saving as if working a shoddy assembly-line job of making “men;” as if a man were so mechanically constructed.  And once this cold and malicious theology is pronounced to a world recently reeling from a new “technical” side of life, the Darwinian rat-race begins.  What once marked man’s existence as moral was sunk into the filth of mechanism.  If our salvation was predetermined and our time on earth was merely a technical formality, then life begins to bleed any semblance of moral significance and is further galvanized into a robotic, destructive, non-transcendental cesspool.  As soon as the Trinity is bastardized into a fabrication scene dooming man, the whole point of the Trinity is lost, because Love is lost.  And when this ultimate pervasive reality is rejected, one cannot help but find himself situated in unreality.

            Hard work is only embraced by Protestants for two poignant reasons: First, if you believe no matter what you do, that you are already doomed or saved, then you have a very skewed picture of what your earthly life is all about.  Not sure what lever Cavlin's god pulled when he plucked you into the world, and not sure how to know, then you are suddenly incentivized to make the absolute best of your time here on earth, because if you are doomed, well, then “eat, drink, and be merry” while you may; but, even better...if you are saved, “eat, drink, and be merry” while you may, because nothing you do can change the lever that is already pulled.  Your actions, remember, are simply technical, unmoral deeds.   Second, the whole theory of hard work which develops from a technical view of work is done for no other reason than material gain premised on the hope of avoiding hard work in the future.  Protestant work ethic is not an embrace of the penitential life where suffering is a necessary and an absolute good (thus, making hard work an end-in-itself), it is merely a means to an end—avoidance of hard work in the future.  Ironically, it is the resolve to do in this world precisely what the Reformation said was not possible to do in the next—to save oneself by hard work. 

Our friendly author who then faults the downfall of society on Sloth needs to go one step further—he needs to fault its demise on the bogus premise that suffering is to be avoided as an end and he needs to recognize his own inability to see the moral aspect (or lack thereof) of a vice when he himself mentions it!  'Sloth' is not a technical term, it is a vice, which is a moral term—'hard work,' conversely, is a virtue, and, likewise, a moral term.  It seems to me, the moral-amnesia concerning this fact began with Luther, was perfectly systematized by Calvin, is wholeheartedly embraced by the Protestant churches, and whose emptiness is now being most fully realized.

Further, we have been led to believe by the article that Protestant theology is to be credited with fostering a sense of "delayed gratification."  What asininity!  Wasn’t it the ultimatum of Luther that spawned the whole defunct and fractured sect?   Our author who romanticizes Protestantism to the point of non-sensical hilarity and outright inaccuracy forgets that it is Protestantism that bred the foolish notion which has been pounded into the heads of men that they have a right or expectation of gratification, period.  It is not that Christianity is without its joys, but these remain surprises and blessings, not entitlements.  And this is what Protestantism has refused to cope with—they simply rob Heaven of its eternal bliss that it might be temporarily experienced with certainty here on earth.  They trade a temporary satisfaction for an eternal one.  Catholics, on the other hand, believe in trading a temporary suffering for an eternal joy.  That is what underscores both the penitential life and the whole doctrine of Purgatory.  Gratification in this world, whether it be instant or delayed, is an import of Protestant theology that seeks to turn the whole created Order on its head simply to advance a foolhardy illusion that we can be crowned kings of the universe…right now. 

I take great comfort in modern-day mystical babble and Marian apparitions that articulate a great act of mercy on the horizon.  It seems it will take an Act of God to retroactively abort the mutant Calvinistic brainchild.  It has been the on-going slogan of his decrepit and evil progeny that “God helps those that help themselves.”  Nothing can be further from the truth.  God helps the helpless.  That is why Christ had to come.  And that is why grace remains evermore fundamental and elementary than all else.  If there were ever good news in the dire times we find ourselves, it is this: that the further we move into a self-induced and blind paralysis by embracing untruth and unreality, we ourselves have become evermore helpless as we have also forced others to share out plight.  Perhaps now the fields of history are fertile enough with the blood of those down-trodden under the immorality of Calvin to be susceptible to the coming Act of God.  And it will not be because we embrace our Protestant roots, but because we emphatically reject them.  Seeking a better world is a moral endeavor.  As such, it is going to require a moral authority and a moral embrace.  At the risk of sounding like my former drinking buddy, Nietzsche, “the technical God is dead.”  And may he not rest in peace.

The Morality of Milk

What is moral?  Recently during a class I said that not knowing where milk came from was immoral.  Knowing where it came from (in the context of the conversation) implied knowing how to obtain it personally (to milk the cow, not just knowing that milk comes from cows) was the moral issue.  Such flippant comments are not unusual for me, but I actually meant this comment.  However, it was a student who asked how that rose to a moral issue.  Admittedly, while I meant it, I was unable to answer the question immediately.  72 hours later, I have my answer.  Miss Audrey Dang, thanks for the question.  This is for you…

“There is nothing queerer today than the importance of unimportant things.  Except, of course, the unimportance of important things.”

~G. K. Chesterton

            I want to begin by writing and thinking about ‘morality.’  Clearly it has something to do with codes of conduct, divinely inspired, divinely instituted, &c.  But, what are these rules?  What underlies them?!  Are morals merely arbitrary ramblings of God which we follow simply because He is God?  Or are they meant to effectuate something more in us?  Do they point to something deeper than producing a mere God-gloating satisfaction? 

            I dare say that God whispers morality into our hearts and writes them on tablets with His own finger not because He is bored and simply wanted to legislate.  He made us for something very special—for Himself, for His Love.  And in order that we might receive that Love, we have to be free.  Freedom is a very delicate position.  It requires strict conduct and adherence.  To my mind, that is why God gave us the moral law—to set the parameters that we might know how to “stay in the lines” and achieve our purpose and end.  Morals bind us to the Good—the end toward which we seek.  The antithesis of morality is slavery—being bound to sin.  Hence, morality and freedom are closely connected in my mind, just as immorality and slavery are intertwined. 

            Man cannot hope to be free without morals.  Nor can he be free without recognition of his own dignity and decency as a man.  This recognition must be a respect by others, as well as a self-respect.  “Respect” is nothing more, in my mind, that treating someone (or something) morally; “to respect,” means promoting the good of the other, promoting the freedom of the other.  Oddly enough, this respect and promotion seems to be what the Doctrine of the Common Good encapsulates.  How do we promote the person (others, as well as, ourselves) except by recognizing the soul of every man, whose ultimate goal is communion with God?  Well, we begin by recognizing that that soul requires "stuff."  But, while “stuff” is important to that rational soul, it is not important in itself, by itself.  You cannot with food or any particular thing produce the “sensation of freedom.”  All man can do with things is sense them.  It is the soul, however, which can enjoy them—it is the soul that can be satisfied and happy. 

Therefore, whatever we give a man as far as materials go, it is imperative that the physicality of the things not be separated from the benefit to the soul and its promotion, as well.  Yet it is precisely this divorce that the modern system of capitalism or socialism, industrialization and urbanization has administered, arriving at a “muddle-headed materialism.” The modern system imagines “stuff” qua “stuff” is all man needs.  "Stuff" that can be mass-produced and consumed seems to be the recipe for modern freedom.  But the recipe forgets about the human spirit, the soul.  It gives us “stuff,” without promoting our freedom.  And as such it is nothing more than a recipe for slavery; a recipe for immorality.  It is a recipe that binds us to society’s productivity, to the offspring of machines, and the market’s ability to feed us.  We live at the pleasure of this recipe.  And if it doesn't pan out, too bad for you, your body, your soul and your life.  You're dead.  How dehumanizing is it to know your existence depends on not receiving a pink slip, on flickering numbers on a stock exchange board, on a checkbook balance.  These have become our masters because they are our only source of sustenance.  We might not be flogged daily by these brutish masters, but assuredly they will one day, when the pink slip comes, when the stock data recedes, when the balance is in the red.  On that day, the veil of fantasy is pierced and we quickly discover what is real. 

Morality, on the other hand, demands that goods serve and promote the physical needs and spiritual needs of man—his freedom and happiness.  We must begin to see the moral side of "stuff;" not only what it is, but how it came to be, and how it wound up into the hands of the man.  "Stuff" is important in the life of man because it allows him to discover a glimpse of something real, which points to a greater reality-- the source of all real "stuff."  What is real is what God made and instituted--Creation.  He gave it to us.  Further, at the Fall He cursed us.  He didn’t curse us to simply sweat.  But He cursed us to sweat while we worked the soil.  Now how fundamentally one interprets this is certainly open to more or less literal interpretations, but I am inclined to take God on His spoken word.  I will not figuratively interpret John 6, nor will I retreat far from the literal meaning of God’s words in Genesis 3.  Our curse is to work the soil (for men), to bear children with increased pains (for women) and to die (both men and women).  What I find interesting is what we accept and reject of these curses.  Nobody says we don’t think God meant we have to die or that we have to have painful child births.  Anyone who would say it is clearly an idiot, and this is demonstrative by the fact that everyone dies and all child-births are painful (even the Blessed Mother's, in my humble opinion).  Despite the literal interpretation based on reality and experience of the last two curse, we all seem to quibble about the first one—man’s working the soil and sweating.  If He was serious and literal about 2-of-3, I think reason ought lead us to thinking of a literal trifecta as opposed to a 33% disingenuousness.  

Oddly enough these curses are really methods toward redemption, properly construed.  We must die to be resurrected (with Christ, as St. Paul tells us; 2 Tim. 2:11).  Women will be redeemed (“saved”) through their cursed pains “in childbearing” (again, St. Paul; 1 Tim. 2:15).  But man’s ability to face his curse and redeem himself is foiled by modernity.  He is divested of land and asked to sweat in a factory (if he is fortunate enough to have a job).  He conveniently goes to Kroger to get his food and milk and never asks nor wonders from which it came.  “Accursed be the soil because of you.  With suffering shall you get your food from it every day of your life.”  Convenient marts and processed foods seem a far cry from this real, God-given curse.  Perhaps eating Cheetos and processed foods can be considered adequate sufferings?  Or maybe if you park far away in the parking lot and work up a sweat walking into the grocery?  I prefer not to hinge my redemptive work on that supposition, however.  Further, because man's curse is foiled and he is confused into believing he serves capital and must act not penitentially and salvifically, but is encouraged to act economically, he decides against marriage (or at least large families).  Either way, women's ability to face their curse and redeem herself is foiled.   

In light of this, I would like for us to consider whether the whole notion behind modern business and capitalism is immoral.  Can something that seeks to circumvent God-given declarations prosper or profit (to use terms the modern can understand)?   Consider the whole premise behind capitalism and the American Dream (aptly called a dream, as opposed to a reality).  In our modern system, hard work and ingenuity are promoted and rewarded.  No big deal.  But the reward is getting out of hard work in the future.  We seek to accumulate capital and resources so that we do not have to work at all-- or at least sweat at all.  Sweat is below our dignity as human beings according to the modern mind.  I would suggest that our great dignity is that we can sweat--but I digress.  Capitalists all seek to reach a fantastic Leisure State.  Ironically, however, we all must admit that the Leisure State is not accessible to all.  It is a ritzy country club where some just aren’t welcome.  These unwelcome folks are what enable the Leisure State to exist.  They are members of the Servile State.  The Leisure State is built upon the premise that all suffering is illegitimate and ought be avoided.  The unfortunate reality of the Servile State is it is mired in illegitimate suffering because of the anti-suffering attitude of the Leisure State.  Until we all accept the premise that there is such a thing as legitimate suffering (cf Gen. 3:17, 2 Cor. 1:5, 1 Peter 4:13, &c.) then we must accept the unreality of masters and slaves—an immoral world.

Knowing where milk comes from and knowing how to get it is a moral question.  Milking a cow is real.  As real as needing to drink the milk.  The sweat of working the soil, ridding it of the thorns and thistles and brambles is real.  The need to do that is real, too; as is its redemptive and soulful effect.  These things make men free by putting his physical being in touch with reality, which is what puts his soul in touch with reality.  Make no mistake, it is not the land that redeems man, but what the realness of the land does for the whole man, body and soul—it brings him closer to the reality of God whom man was made to know and to love.  The theory of fleeing to the fields and “returning [man] to the soil, as [man] was taken from it,” is not because of material prosperity, but spiritual prosperity: “the reason ultimately refers not to land but to life; not to property but to happiness; not to the body but to the soul.”  Knowing where milk comes from is important.  Milk is sustenance.  It may seem too small and petty to rise to the level of a moral issue; that is until you have to sweat to get it, until you have to work to get it.  Making money is unimportant.  Money has no dietary or redemptive value; yet we spend our whole lives trying to get as much of it as possible.  Milk is moral, money is not.  That is why God said those who serve money cannot serve him.  He never said the same thing about milk.  Actually, He said he wanted us getting it by sweat, by dirt, and by suffering—every day of our lives.  Knowing where things come from helps us get back to first principles, which always lead to moral and spiritual principles.  The more we seek these principles, the more we will discover the depths and marvelous beauty that small, overlooked things possess.  We will suddenly discover the miracle of cows, the romance of milk, the sacredness of soil, the breadth of homemade bread.  But we will also discover something very grand that until now we have been told is so minor-ly minuscule as to merit very little attention: yourself-- a being with a noble dignity, a holy decency, and a commanding respect.  

You decide.

Conservative Democrat: "Occupy Wall Street!"

It is often a delicate matter when I tell people that I am a Democrat.  I always have to preface the declaration and it usually takes the form of, “I have a confession to make,” as if I should be ashamed or embarrassed.  But I am not.  I am a Democrat.  This usually lumps me in with a cast of unsavory and assorted characters, many of which have done some very left-wing, zany things that I am not in-favor or on-board with.  I cannot help who else calls themselves a Democrat, nor can I be to blame for their half-baked actions and theories.  I am also a Catholic.  But simply because I discover a sinner on-board (or a whole deck of sinners who have done some pretty heinous things) does not justify my not being a Catholic.  Contrary to the old wives tale, one apple doesn’t spoil the batch, necessarily; but it does make things difficult, admittedly. 

I am a Democrat and I am a conservative.  This seems a paradox to some folks who believe very simply that liberals ought be Democrats and conservatives ought be Republicans.  While I concede Republicans are conservative, I would argue that Democrats are, too.  The question becomes one much more important than the liberal/conservative question; but rather, and investigation to the question of conserving ***what*** ?

You see liberals just want change because they premise their philosophy on dialectic madness, that change is always progressive, and progress is always good.  So, for a liberal, we must always change for the sake of change.  The problem with most conservatives who call themselves Republicans is that they react to reactionary liberals and say conservation of the status quo is what is good and progressive, and so change is always bad.  So for Republicans it is often preservation of the status quo or a necessary rollback of an advancing liberal agenda without little question as to whether “what” we are preserving or rolling-back to is actually worthy or noble.  I am not the type of conservative galvanized to preserve the status quo.

Rather, I am conservative because I want to preserve the dignity of the common man—the vulgar man.  This, too, is why I am a Democrat.  I am much more comfortable in the unrefined mob where simple ways and simple language tend to prevail.  These folks and their vulgar ways are whose fate I hope mine to be intertwined with.  They are whom I affiliate and associate.  I don’t want to change them nor do I want them to change—hence, no-thank-you to the Liberal.  I also don’t want to choke them and starve them out by the crazy, spiritually corrupt, big business world that conservative Republicans hope to maintain and expand. 

I am not friendly to industry, because industry is not friendly to the vulgar man. The unbelievable scandal about common people is not that they are common, but that they want to be common.  I believe they ought be.   And if that means changing the world to fit the vulgar man, then the world must change to conform to the man, and not the other way around.  The source of the scandal is that the ambitious man who seeks to gain the whole world hasn’t.  In the meantime he refuses to believe anyone could be happy while he is so unhappy.  And we all know how misery loves company…so, he either seeks to change them into unhappy beasts like himself (liberals) or seeks to use them to try and obtain his own happiness (the modern political conservative).

It was Gilbert Keith who said, “the mob can never rebel unless it is conservative.”  They must have something real to rally behind—something they seek to conserve.  Liberals are not revolutionaries, but mere destroyers, because they rally behind an abstraction—you can’t conserve change.  The modern day political conservative is totally opposed to rebellion because he is afraid he’ll be called a liberal since he wants to change.

But if the object of our conservation is in jeopardy, you change your position to challenge the threat.  In this situation, change is not necessarily bad, but absolutely good.  It is a baffling experience to be in the presence of so many Christians and Catholics who promote the idea of conversion as a favorable and sanctifying characteristic for persons, but then refuse to believe it healthy for society.  The personal path to holiness is to change often—not for the sake of change, but for the sake of good.  We all admit we have a long way to go toward perfection and willingly admit we are called to continual conversion.  But we act like the society we have built is founded on perfect foundations already, and we are unwilling to entertain changing or converting them.  We have double-standards.  If your soul is filthy, you need to wash it clean—right back to square one.  The same is true for our society.  Jubilees are not just personal, internal experiences, but ought be societal, external experiences, as well.  It was St. John who wrote, “If we say we have no sin in us, we are deceiving ourselves and refusing to admit the truth.”  We accept that and recognize that to say otherwise is unabashedly prideful and leads to the grave.  Yet how resistant are we to the idea of saying it of our community, our society, our policies?!  “To say that we have never sinned is to call God a liar and to show that his word is not in us.”

We must be conservative, but we must seek to conserve the right things—the dignity of the human person.  We are not conserving that dignity currently.  We might be better than the Iranians or the Stalinists or the Chinese; but when did those become acceptable standards by which to measure ourselves?!  Why not measure ourselves against a higher standard?  I think the Kingdom of God would be a fine standard.  If that is the case, can anyone say that our “great society” has achieved that status?  Well, then, that leaves only one answer—repent and convert.  Conserve the essential and purge the sinful—“but if we acknowledge our sins, then God who is faithful and just will forgive our sins and purify us from everything that is wrong.” 

A fine place to start the revolution is to go ahead and admit there are some elephants in the room.  We should further admit that the elephants are the least of our concern.  Rather, it is the scarlet beast with seven heads and ten horns and a harlot on its back.   There is no sense in conserving this destructive showpiece.  Good riddance, let’s change!  Occupy Wall Street!  And once she is gone, then we can deal with the elephants.  But, please, don’t tell me that we ought not kick out the beast only to spare ourselves from being trampled by elephants.  That’s absurd.  Because while we are protected from the beast’s terrors others are falling prey to her.  We will not save ourselves by throwing others to their demise.  We must not.  We are better than that.  We must be better than that.  Kill the Beast!  Kill the elephants!  Down with all the giants!  Thy Kingdom Come!  Only then will I favor conserving the status quo.  

"Get a Life!"

“You’ve gotta open yourself up to one another in a respectable way…you learn life by getting involved...it takes two to make war, but two to make peace...” -Roy, modern day prophet

“Get a life!” This is an expression of my generation that means something different than what it actually says. We use the expression when we see someone being peculiarly particular, fixated on something that we see as silly or senseless. Yet the committed fools whom we sling the admonishment toward actually have a life in their “petty” little fascinations. What we really are disgusted about is not the person’s not having a life, but the type of life he is leading. What is really meant by the expression is “Get a new life!”

Yet there is an even deeper goofiness to the expression and its use. The folks typically using the expression are disgusted not by the particular life that the committed fool is leading, but are actually concerned that he has a life. Because the normative claim conveyed by the popular notion of the expression is “cast aside your idle curiosities and be free of your commitments—for such is living.” And that is the goofy thing. “Be free and live,” is a very accurate statement; however, the modern take on freedom is license—do whatever. Therefore, what the expression is really saying is “be licentious and live.” Gee, thanks for the advice.

“Be free and live,” is accurate when freedom is properly understood as carrying with it not only certain rights but corresponding duties and responsibilities. There seems to be a general confusion about what it means to have a life. To be living is to be bound. It was C.S. Lewis who made the apt observation that everyone is ultimately possessed by either God or the Devil. Our lives are not our own exclusively, and when we take the steps toward making them exclusively our own, we cease to be alive. Living is a product of commitments—the things we are living for and giving ourselves to. Have you ever noticed that when you have made every effort to “keep your options open” that all you wind up doing is sitting around alone and wondering what to do? You possess your life at precisely that moment—and with all that pride of ownership you discover that you are alone and have nothing to do and nobody is seeking you out because you’ve made it clear you are not willing to share yourself with anyone.

Communion is the source of life—communion means we must be willing to give and take—to give ourselves and to take others’ lives into our own. It is one of the befuddling beauties of Christian mystery and paradox that we only possess a life when we are willing to divest ourselves of that life. We gain when we lose, we get when we give, we are filled when we are emptied, we are free when we are fettered. Getting a life is not a matter of loosing yourself and keeping your options open. It is precisely a matter of eliminating your options—of having something very particular and peculiar to live for—not yourself, but the Other. We find ourselves in them—we discover who we are and where we start only at the moment when we recognize that they begin. Relationships—these are what give us (our) life because they give us (other) lives—they entrust others to us, giving us responsibilities and duties.

Too, we find our meaning not only when we are in communion with others, but when we are communion with other things. When we have the opportunity to give meaning to “stuff,” by putting our energy and care into “things,” we find meaning in our lives. That is the bizarre reason that we must get involved, we must seek out commitments, things to pour ourselves into. Trying to remain unmoored is simply the recipe for waywardness, not definitiveness.

It is a rude and unsavory action to rotate gifts you have been given to gifts you will give. We all think of the junk trinket some great-aunt got us that we hate and we keep it until next year when we’ll give it away and make it someone else’s problem. Yet this is precisely what we are asked to do with our lives. The distinction to be made between our lives and the trinket we rotate to the next year’s unsuspecting fool is that our lives actually matter, they have meaning, and they are not junk. The Lord gave you an infinitely valuable gift when He gave you your life. In giving that gift of your life to another person or to this world through work is infinitely valuable.

But God doesn’t even stop there with the unfashionable requests when it comes to gift-etiquette. The only other lynchpin about gift-giving norms, is that you make it a gift—which means you don’t ask for it back. We call these folks “Indian Givers,” and it is not a term of affection. Yet that is exactly what God does. He gives and then He wants it back. He actually initiates the rotation of the same gift He gave you from yourself to others with the intention of it finally rotating it back to Himself. Clearly, His thought are not our thoughts, because this is not at all what gift-giving is supposed to be like...right?! Wrong.

We may be wholly confused about why He does this elaborate gift-exchange and we may wonder if it is even really gift-giving if it is not ours (exclusively). After all, it is not ours, so what of all this craziness and hassle?! What does it mean?! It means Life. It is from the chaos that we come to find order. It is only when we lose ourselves that we know not only what we are, but what we can be; when we move outside of ourselves we are forced to unpack all the talents, gifts, strength, shortcomings, weaknesses and limits that the Lord gave us in the gift of our life. We cannot know the infinite value of who we are (and who we are not) until we inventory it for the world of people and things that anxiously seek to know us. And this world so anxious for you—your life—they don’t want to read a biography, but they want the whole thing, not to know by possessing facts, but to know by possessing you, particularly and wholly. They will come to have you by forming relationships and commitments with you. They will invite you be involved in their lives in meaningful ways, wanting to give to you as they seek to take from you. Life is what happens when we participate in this self-emptying gift-exchange. So, please, stop cowering behind non-commitment and, “Get a life!”

Rejection & Reflection

“The deepest feeling always shows itself in silence; not in silence, but restraint.” ~Marianne Moore

Man cannot transcend without relief—this principle follows from the God-given design of the sacredness of the Sabbath. Convenience is not the source of our salvation—it is not uplifting, despite the modern supposition. We must have leisure—which is a very special use of one’s time, specifically spending it non-usefully. Convenience is not leisure because it stops one step short; it only earns time by saving time, but the spare time must be used properly to make leisure. We gain a moment only to utilize it for our material, not spiritual, gain. But spiritual gain is precisely the fruit of time spent non-usefully. It is not surprising that prayers are done in silence and stillness.

All we have really accomplished in our modern age of technology, communication, and machinery is not a liberating advance, but a stagnation full of color, neon lights, and gadgetry—in short, an innovative hunter-gatherer society. Mankind, despite the centuries and millennia since the debacle at Babel, has yet to understand its lesson: a structure build upon spiritual depravity is socially disruptive and leads to disunity and confusion. Judging from the chaos on the ground it seems safe to conclude our system and structure suffers from spiritual depravity. Secularity, relativism, unfettered commerce, vanity, greed, usury, and individualism describe this depravity and they are to blame for the social disruption.

Yet the modern structure is comprehensively systematic and its potential disruption is apocalyptic. The only people situated to remind man of his transcendence is not the politician or the philanthropist or even the priest—for they all must remain in machine-like structures which exploit us all, conscript us into erecting Babel. Only the monk and the artist are properly disposed to withdraw from the world as one must to imagine, reflect, pray, and prevent oneself from becoming the “pastime of powerful men” or “mere sequin upon the social dress.”

The foundation of God’s Kingdom on earth must begin by being purged of both big-business and power-politics and being committed to men and mankind with all its spiritual elements intact and respected. Revolutions (in the violent sense) are not the source of this civilization’s setting; rather, it will be ushered in by substitution and conversion. Artists are precisely what we need—people who bow-out, making their very business un-business. They are not organizers or administrators, as Massingham writes, but rather, the artist is the “centre of suggestion.” These men and women reject in order to reflect; they cease to pontificate and participate in order to listen. The will withdraw in order to “penetrate the dormant bud of being, where it protects itself in its sheath of darkness from the frost that paralyses and the heat that consumes.” What they produce are not armaments for battle, but remedies for depression. The strategy of modern man’s struggle in not the warfare-of-advance-through-destruction; this is the unworkable myth of progress that calls us to be ever-changing into the future’s new and un-sustaining trend. This hawkish stance taken by the moderns will ensure their demise. Structures bent on actively destroying ultimately consume themselves: “destruction mutinies in its own camp and sends its loyalists packing into the meager cohorts of the faithful.”

The meager cohorts of the faithful are the artists whose vocations are summed up in walking away from the darkness in order to sketch portraits of Light that they pepper behind themselves leaving a trail for us to follow in their journey. These wayfarers harbor and cultivate the human spirit by coming to know it; they communicate the truth of it not as the muse from on high descends to them, but as they approach the muse, themselves. The artists’ retreat and fleeing to the fields, to the simple life is the source that best reveals the depth of mystery and the actual and only effective revolution that mankind will witness. The artists’ withdrawal is the battle—remaining artistically chaste is simply a matter of not becoming a whore of commerce. Charles Marriot reminds us, “There must be no making friends with the children of Mammon.” This type of celibacy will be demanded as the only practical means to the end toward which the artist tends: “He will not be able to give up the world for Christ’s sake unless he give it up for his own…He cannot give it up for his own unless he learn to laugh, as well as to frown—both at himself and the rich absurdity of what he is leaving.”

There are many-a-philistines today who proclaim that art is obsolete because it is a complete waste of time. My position concedes to Testadura, &al. that they are right about art being a complete waste of time. I would remind them that so, too, is eternity. Further, I think it worth pointing out that it is art’s complete wasting of time that makes it so invaluable and necessary. Why, dear Testadura, is it so silly to waste one’s time living as opposed to spending one’s time wasting life?

The Enormity of Normality

Times are strange, to say the least. Most people will admit that. Yet, it seems that when a man recognizes this and subsequently rejects a particular, oppressive authority in this modern world he is quickly lumped into a category of being opposed to all authority generally. Disobedience at any level will likely land you be labeled as an anarchist or rebel. To draw a line anywhere is somehow perceived as abolishing all lines everywhere. Never mind the clear and obvious fact that the accusation was prompted by your saying, “Here! This is a line that I believe in!”

The reason for the name-calling is that it shifts the attention—it is an immediate defense mechanism that the accused use in order to make their accusers look lunatic. The “anarachist” or the “rebel” will point out the oppressive behavior and say, “He is to blame.” Then, before any investigation into the legitimacy of the claim can begin, the blamed hurls the diverting label.

Now, ‘anarchy’ is a much abused word. The typical view is that anarchists despise any semblance of order. Some do; but some is not all. Anarchy can simply be a refusal to be governed by particular authorities or by particular manners. To be opposed to a certain order is not the same as opposing order, altogether. Simply because a man rejects certain theoretical physics does not mean he is opposed to physics. As a matter of fact, the contrarian might be opposed because he so staunchly believes in the laws of physics. Likewise, just because we are opposed to the morals of the modern world—its economy and its politics—does not mean that we are opposed to morality. As a matter of fact, we are contrarians because we staunchly believe in morality.

The labels of ‘anarchist’ and ‘rebel’ might be appropriately distracting if what we are suggesting were some brand new world order or some cockamamie scheme. Yet some ‘anarchists’ and ‘rebels’ believe in order, just not this current one that is vastly centralized and largely irresponsive. The faith of these sort of folks is “free, efficient, creative, enjoyable, and enduring.” Consequently, the nemesis of these same folks is “bigness,” which is “impersonal, insensitive, and lusts to concentrate power.” Now, how that means we are gone-bonkers, lunatics, and off-our-rockers, I don’t know. I just think that this means we believe in common decency and the dignity of the human person. As such, we are not espousing any new morality, simply a recognition of the basic morals of life, liberty, and property, not to mention the pursuit of happiness. Despite the perception, we actually have very high standards and very much believe in legitimate authorities.

The problem with modernity is that it has mutilated the ordinary life into something despicable. Normal people are gutted of their spirit and souls as they are further conformed to a mechanical life. We cannot imagine lives where less is more, small is beautiful, and humility is power. The past holds only examples of extraordinary people who resemble the Amish more than ourselves. Yet, I am firmly convinced that despite what the commercial world tries to tell us, that in the heart of every man is a small family farmer. It is the primitive Adam & Eve in each of us. Is this romanticizing the past or violating some rule against nostalgia? Maybe. But at least it lends some meaning to our lives and our labors that our 40-hour week, corporate world do not. Can we really be called dreamers because we believe in something real? Can we really be called silly idealists because we believe in the power of property, work, and material? We’re the spiritualists and the realists, both at the same time. Our position, oddly enough, is quite incarnational.

Modernity is fundamentally opposed to normality. Morality, being the common song of every soul, not only tends toward the normal, but resides therein. ‘Vulgar’ may have a foul connotation, but I’ll take it over modernity, any day. In its purist sense it simply means the common-folk, or the common-place, which may, indeed, have people rough-around-the-edges, but, at least, they have edges. At least they are willing to recognize they are not all-encompassing, that they begin, and they end. As a matter of fact, they end where you begin, and they see that. Vulgarity may not respect silly rules of etiquette from the cultured elite, but it does respect people. Modernity can’t say that—it respects an idea, an abstraction, a vision of progress. The problem with classic liberalism, a professor recently said, is that “it will line a human being up on a wall and shoot him for the sake of the abstraction.”

When will men be men? This is a question Gilbert Keith asks. They will be men when they realize that they are, in fact. When they realize that they are not cogs in a machine, not interchangeable parts. When they realize they are not radicals or anarchists or rebels, at least not in the way that others are supposing and implying. Men will be men when they stop settling for less so that others might have more—we will be men when we assert our right to normal, dignified, and simple lives. We are not relying on dreams or ideals, but real things and moral standards. As G.K. reminds us, when the modern-day Rockefeller says, “You are a rebel!,” you must respond, “No, I am a respectable man, and you are not. You, sir, are a robber.” We are not rebelling, but reclaiming; not proposing new, but relying on old; not opposed to authority, but opposed to usurpation; not asking for the extraordinary, but desiring to be ordinary. Normal lives—lives centered on God, property, family, and hard, life-sustaining work—is what will make men men.

Optimism with Flannery

There will always be a special place in my heart for Flannery O’Connor. Having never met her in person, she has, nonetheless, irreversibly touched my life through her writings and stories. A master of wit, fiction, and character construction, Flannery helped introduce me to my Faith in stories where her theology permeates the engrossed reader. Not only did she bring me closer to God, but through her art (which she unreservedly calls “grotesque”) she managed to make me an optimist.

Optimism, it would seem, is an unfashionable attitude these days. Most people you’re likely to meet will unabashedly pronounce their pessimism or their agnosticism (which is nothing more than pessimism in denial). Too, people (like one of my good friends) qualify the eras into which their positivity extends--like Tolkien, they are "historic pessimists, but eschatological optimists." I, however, am not willing to say my optimism begins anywhere but now and forever. Call me a fool, but I believe in my heart that we can do better, and that, indeed, we shall—even on this side of eternity.

This ability to hope and believe was taught to me by Flannery who showed her readers how to see. Optimism, not surprisingly, depends on optics, on sight. Optimists are capable of believing that good will prevail in the world, in time, in the lives of men because they are able to see the best even amidst the worst. Using our optics to see the good is what gives us the word, optimal. The root of optic (sight) and optimus (the best) is derivative of two Latin roots: ob- (in front of) and ops- (power). And that is what truly well-trained eyes are able to do—to not only see what is in front of them, but to have the power to pierce this encounter and see beyond, as well—all the way to the good, to the best.

The God and Faith that Flannery was willing to share with me and bring me to is one that allows me to encounter mystery daily. She is always willing to note her critics who claim that her Faith limits her art. Flannery, however, resists this view: “I have found nothing further from the truth. Actually, [Christian dogma] frees the storyteller to observe. It is not a set of rules which fixes what he sees in the world. It affects his writing primarily by guaranteeing his respect for mystery.” And it is not only true for writers, but all artists, and, in fact, all humans.

We are only able to see best when our world is so broad and deep that we couldn’t possibly see everything—when mystery is always glaring us in the face. This mystery must be the pivotal encounter, the focus which draws us and attracts us—whether it be the profound truth of the foolish situation or the alluring beauty of the simple sight—we must long for this immensity in each tiny object. It was the Ancient Hebrews, Flannery correctly notes, who were “genius for making the absolute concrete.” These folks revealed that even in the immanent we can touch the transcendent. The more grounded and probingly microscopic our vision becomes the more awesome visions we behold—suddenly we see the person and world in front of us, in their entirety, in their dignity.

If the world is to be a better place, an optimal place, then we must all stop thinking carrots are the answer to poor eyesight. Actually, it is humility that helps us to see. We must first discover our own eyes by discovering the mystery inlying our very selves. "To know oneself,” Flannery suggests, “is, above all, to know what one lacks. It is to measure oneself against the Truth, and not the other way around.” When we discover Truth and its effect on us, we see for the first time the Fallen world and our place in it, and are compelled to be fulfilled by engaging the depths for heights, humility for ecstasy, and suffering for satisfaction. We go out to meet the world with our capacity for incapacity and become prophets in our everyday activities where our “prophecy is a matter of seeing near things with their extensions of meaning and thus of seeing far things close up.”

“The roots of the eye are in the heart,” Msgr. Guardini reminds us. And our hearts’ beatings are the pulse of our visions and the rhythm of our dreaming. If we fail to see and achieve a future worthy of our faith and befitting He who died for us, then it was because we refused to let Him cure our blindness (which is because we hardened our hearts). Pessimism (whether it be historical and/or eschatological) is a heart disease brought about by blockage which can be near or far.

Too many dismiss idealism as a simpleton’s wayward notion proven by history to be untenable. Plato believed we had to leave this fallen world to escape (clearly a historical pessimist) to the heavenly bliss (clearly an eschatological optimist). Yet, it was a silly Jewish carpenter who proved historically that idealism was possible by rejecting the Platonic divorce for an Incarnational wedding. It was He who demonstrated that henceforth there is no room for pessimism; but first we must see, and we must see why (which in His sight are quite literally the same thing).

Pessimism says that because we’ve tried so long with no avail, that we never shall. Yet, it is another good literary friend, Gilbert Keith (Chesterton) who said, “the Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.” You see, the other way the aforementioned Jewish fellow changed our view on idealism is because He also changed the misconception about 'the' ideal. He said that optimal future is not one free of suffering, but only free of illegitimate suffering; it is not free of hardship, but full of support. He did not promise solid gold toilet seats to everyone, nor seal-skin bed sheets. But He did suggest we could live good lives, and that we could do so for eternity. In fact, we can begin as soon as today, as we first open our eyes, as we take up the task of heralding in an optimistic future. One may see us as backwards and odd as we usher in the era, and they will be somewhat right, since we must appear confusing, suggesting we are eye-doctors primarily concerned with cardiology.