I'm thankful for the service of Dale Ahlquist and his show Apostle of Common Sense and the work of Kevin O'Brien and his Theater of the Word. This is one of my favorite videos of their combined work.
And now, I've recently discovered that I can read that same story through Google Books.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Chesterton the Poet
There has not been much activity on the blog despite three contributors. At least this will end the long dry spell.
It's easy to forget that Chesterton was also a poet, given his success as a journalist and author. Here is a poetic rejoinder to another poem which is harsh about a woman's stroll. A person can feel the delight that Chesterton had in writing this poem.
It's easy to forget that Chesterton was also a poet, given his success as a journalist and author. Here is a poetic rejoinder to another poem which is harsh about a woman's stroll. A person can feel the delight that Chesterton had in writing this poem.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
An Observation on the Debate
The following is an essay Paul Murano wrote after attending last Saturday's debate.
Christianity vs. Humanism: Which offers the greater hope for humanity? - - An observation
While I was watching the debate between Christians and Humanists I was struck by a few things. First I was impressed that people of different worldviews had the good will to get together and learn about each other, to gain further insight into why we think the way we do. It was a display of community outreach that could bring about positive results.
It wasn’t too long before I realized that one of the gentlemen who represented Humanism was not debating Christianity, but rather distortions of Christianity. He made clear his problem with the unreasonableness of fundamentalist beliefs (and the way the secular media likes to caricature them). This is not necessarily his fault; he may not have known that the Catholic Christians on the other side of the panel would also reject those beliefs. With absolutely no disrespect to Protestants, Catholics believe that Christ established the Church 2000 years ago and in an unbroken succession the fullness of truth and grace still subsides in the Catholic Church. To Chesterton and Catholics in general Catholicism is true Christianity; other denominations have a portion of the truth. This is not an arrogant claim, but a sincere assessment based on history, tradition, and faith. So there was a fundamental difference in how each side of the debate defined Christianity to begin with. In fact Catholics would agree with Humanists on the points that he mentioned, which specifically related to preserving the environment, the reactionary and vengeful attitude displayed after 9/11, and that the world is much more than 6000 years old; and Catholics do not believe that everyone in the world is going to hell if they don’t explicitly believe in Jesus or that everything is pre-determined including who will be saved, as the humanists accused. I have often found that those who reject the Catholic Church usually aren’t rejecting Catholicism, but a false image or representation of it. For this reason, and because of the fact that there is also a Christian Humanism, it might have been a good idea to call the event, “Catholic Christianity vs. Secular Humanism” or simply “Catholicism vs. Humanism”.
I came out of the debate realizing that the difference between the two sides was not in these accusations but in something more basic. What I saw that night was that one side respected human reason as a way to attain truth, and so did the other. One side had a love for science and the scientific method, and so did the other. The difference was that one side recognized something more than these two ways to certitude. In recognition that man is limited in his being and potential knowledge and with a belief that the Creator of the universe has not remained in hiding, faith is added to reason and science as a complementary and vital avenue to truth. Faith in authority, which we all practice, is extended to the ultimate Authority, the God and Creator of the universe who has revealed Himself to restore the relationship lost with those created in His image. The Garden of Eden story spoke of the rebellion called original sin where a personified serpent gave man and woman the ultimate seduction: If you reject God “You will be your own gods”. That seduction from the Evil One echoes throughout history, and in the 20th century into the 21st secular humanism in all its forms explicitly took the bait; and as God originally warned suffering and death is the result. Only one side hold the faith that they are loved by God and have been given the means to overcome suffering and death - to enter what surpasses this life into never-ending joy.
The Humanists considered their position to be the humble non-elitist position because they claim not to have received any special revelation from above. But I would challenge that assessment and propose that the opposite is true, for two reasons:
There was a certainty that supernatural claims are make-believe. But how could someone know this, for this knowledge would transcend the limits of human reason and the scientific method. It is like a fish claiming to be certain there is no reality outside of his experience of ocean life. That would be a foolish claim.
Because of this rejection secular humanism in effect claims man to be his own ultimate authority, his own god. Man can create his own truth and reality, and redefine morality according to his liking. This seems considerably less humble than recognizing and submitting to One higher than himself.
So why do Christians believe that this supernatural realm does exist? The onus would actually be on Humanism to prove it doesn’t. Religion and language are two universal traits that separate human beings from all the other earthly animals. It is “hardwired” into human nature - children and primitive tribes all have a sense of the supernatural and an innate propensity for language. Religious belief remains until or unless it is brainwashed out of us. This usually happens in our modern culture at around the time of adolescence when the loud voices of cynical secular media and academia get hold of us. Socially it has occurred with the modern post-Christian movement, after our opulence led us to believe we could be our own gods and create our own reality. But why, we might ask, do human beings begin with such propensities for symbolic language and religious belief? Perhaps there’s a connection. Both point to an immaterial or spiritual component in man that can grasp immaterial things like ideas, thoughts, and essences. We come into the world with a propensity to believe in something higher than the senses can experience, beyond what we could ever know empirically. By nature we seek God, and by faith we believe He seeks us.
Every human propensity has an external object that satisfies it: hunger is a sign that there is food for the body, thirst that there is water, a mind that thinks and conceives ideas points to an immaterial dimension of the world, a heart that seeks perfect love is a sign that there is a perfect Lover that will fulfill it, and hope for happily-ever-after found in literature throughout history, is a sign that there is one, heaven. All of these desires are common and universal and can be said to spring innately from our human nature. Each of them points to an external reality that is meant to satisfy them.
The debate spent a lot of time speaking about what each side stood for but not as much time on the actual question posed, which was: Which holds the greater hope for humanity?
Let’s look at this objectively and succinctly. Secular humanism claims that we may create a better and more peaceful existence without God, and as a result have more hope. Let’s see if this deems true. Secular humanists would live their lives for the smaller goals that we all do, like developing one’s talents, cultivating friends, loving one’s spouse, caring for one’s children, contributing to one’s community, and the like. Mixed in with all of this, for the few decades we have on earth is tragedy, heartbreak, sickness, suffering, and death of loved ones. If we’re lucky we might have eight or nine decades of experiencing this before we die. Then our bodies decay and decompose and within a couple of generations no one on earth will remember you nor care about you or your memory. In a nutshell this is the hope of the secular humanist. On a larger scale, in the past century humanist utopias have been tried and miserably failed. In the 20th Century the socialist humanist movements of Communism and Nazism not only failed but contributed to the greatest killing of humanity in history. Humanists would claim that religion has been the cause of many wars. I would say people are the cause of wars and religion has often been used as an excuse. That’s a criticism of the dark side of people, not religion; for people would find another excuse if religion was not available. [But let’s relate this to the current debate. How many Catholic countries have been known for going to war? Tribal wars continue from time immemorial, there have been brutal wars in the Far East and Middle East, and there have been two world wars in the past century, but none of the major players were Catholic nations. Catholic countries like Italy, Poland, Ireland, and most in Central and South America never have been war-like. Only when infiltrated by outside aggressive forces have there been defensive skirmishes (such as in Nicaragua and Northern Ireland).]
Is there any more hope in the Christian worldview? Christian hope is tied to eternity and eternity is tied to time. This life is the springboard, the womb that prepares us for the life to come. Our hope is in a God who is infinite goodness and love, who cares about us and seeks to help us through the misery and injustice that we as a human race have gotten ourselves into. And Christian hope is in everlasting life of total fulfillment, not life for a few decades with struggle. When time is not related to eternity this life becomes ultimately meaningless. The Christian hope is that the innate desires we all possess as human beings will be fully satisfied, and that true fulfillment and never-ending joy will be realized after the period of living the consequences of our own selfishness has been completed. Everything that occurs now is believed to have a reason, and is directed toward that end which never ends. As Christians know from the New Testament all things work for good for those who love God; and that eye has not seen nor ear has heard the wonders that God has on store for those who love Him; where every tear will be wiped away and there will be no more death or mourning, weeping or pain, for the old order will have passed away.
In comparing which of the two views offers the greater hope, you make the call.
Paul Murano
Monday, September 27, 2010
Debate Recap
I gotta say, it was an interesting night at the Chesterton Society/Worcester Humanists debate last night. There was a very good vibe in the air, lots of conviviality, and a genuine feeling that people were looking forward to a lively exchange of ideas.
I got to the debate at about 6:15, and there were already about ten cars in the parking lot (the debate was scheduled to being at 7PM). I had the feeling that there was some excitement about this debate, and that the crowd might be bigger than the twenty or thirty I anticipated. I entered the Unitarian church hall, where I had once been a parishioner, and it was a hive of activity. The humanists were working to set up the hall, to prepare the video equipment used to record the debate, setting out refreshments, and welcoming folks who were coming in the door.
I was engaged with last minute preparations with Michael Hughes, our principal debater, so I was somewhat distracted. I had also been trying to think of questions that might be posed to the Chestertonian side, and coming up with what I hoped were thoughtful answers. A particular question that had been bugging me: the claim that society had somehow "moved on" from Christianity, and that life had become progressively better as the Church's power had waned. I found an answer that satisfies me - have you?
I have to admit that I was nervous as things got started. I was glad that Mike had the intro - I could wait to see how things would go while he was on the hot seat. We had all heard the intro before - I had actually read his latest draft that morning. I knew that it was good, so I could take notes and see how the crowd was reacting. The crowd was large - all the chairs in the room were taken. It seemed that there were a lot more attendees on the Humanist side than the Chesterton side. But all told, there were over one hundred people in attendance. But it was not a hostile crowd. There were a few heads that consistently shook horizontally whenever the Chestertons spoke, but, by and large, the faces were generously listening.
The Humanists intro was pretty good. There were some inconsistencies, some bits of misinformation, and some claims that were slightly puzzling. But it was thoughtful, and it was a far cry from the usual fare of bits-and-parts bickering that usually makes up these discussions. Our opponents, Mr. David Niose and Mr. Brian Seitzman, were both gentlemen, well spoken, and generous.
I was somewhat dismayed that the schedule veered from what I thought it was going to be - instead of a five-minute rebuttal, we were asked to pose questions to the other side. As was evident from the rest of the questions that were posed that night, it was much easier to ask questions of the Catholic side, since there were more substanital issues and stances to which the Church subscribes. Trying to get a Humanist to answer questions about Humanism was somewhat like nailing jello to the wall. What it means to be a Humanist is fairly simple and stated in a few short phrases that do not provide traction for probing inquiry. I would have liked very much to have a few minutes to respond to the claims made by the Humanist side during the debate - especially things surrounding the fractured nature of Christian churches, some bits of misinformation about Christianity, and to discuss the reductionist nature of the Humanist position.
During the Humanists concluding remarks, I had to look down and take notes to prevent saying something like "Oh, my God" really loud. After an hour and change of debate, it was humorous, if exasperating, to hear their primary debater say that there could be no rational basis for religious belief and to basically blame it on a maternal guilt complex. Not shocking, but shocking, at the same time.
I call the debate a success, and here's why: we stated our position cogently without sinning against charity in the course of the debate. Well, I may have venially sinned against charity at several points in the debate, but luckily they only occurred between my ears and I didn't act on any temptation to smack anyone over the head. Victory!
Seriously, it was a success because we went into the lion's den and stated a case while preserving the bonds of charity. I don't care if anyone was converted (I do, really) they should have been!
One particularly difficult moment was when one of the Humanists got up, ostensibly to ask a question, and started reading what I presumed to be quotes from Hitchens' book on Mother Teresa. Total bunk, which was not unusual for the night, but I feel a certain delicacy in matters surrounding Mother Teresa. My response is akin to what one would feel if someone were insulting someone's mother. It is neither gentlemanly nor dignified to comment on such matters, and I feel the best, and most appropriate, response is a bonk on the head. Alas...
But three cheers for the Chestertons for their performance on that memorable evening, and especially for Mr. Michael Hughes, our chosen champion and fidei defensor. He acquitted himself admirably on the field of battle, and has shown himself trusty in pitched intellectual struggle.
The next debate will probably be in January or February of next year. (Mr. Niose, the Humanists' primary, humorously remarked that December is a busy time, even for a Humanist.) My wife recommended a more focused topic. I'm open to all comers - let me know what you think. Oh, and let me know what you're willing to do, as we'll be responsible for far more this time around. We can't be outdone in hospitality by the Humanists, who did, in fact, put on quite a nice evening.
I got to the debate at about 6:15, and there were already about ten cars in the parking lot (the debate was scheduled to being at 7PM). I had the feeling that there was some excitement about this debate, and that the crowd might be bigger than the twenty or thirty I anticipated. I entered the Unitarian church hall, where I had once been a parishioner, and it was a hive of activity. The humanists were working to set up the hall, to prepare the video equipment used to record the debate, setting out refreshments, and welcoming folks who were coming in the door.
I was engaged with last minute preparations with Michael Hughes, our principal debater, so I was somewhat distracted. I had also been trying to think of questions that might be posed to the Chestertonian side, and coming up with what I hoped were thoughtful answers. A particular question that had been bugging me: the claim that society had somehow "moved on" from Christianity, and that life had become progressively better as the Church's power had waned. I found an answer that satisfies me - have you?
I have to admit that I was nervous as things got started. I was glad that Mike had the intro - I could wait to see how things would go while he was on the hot seat. We had all heard the intro before - I had actually read his latest draft that morning. I knew that it was good, so I could take notes and see how the crowd was reacting. The crowd was large - all the chairs in the room were taken. It seemed that there were a lot more attendees on the Humanist side than the Chesterton side. But all told, there were over one hundred people in attendance. But it was not a hostile crowd. There were a few heads that consistently shook horizontally whenever the Chestertons spoke, but, by and large, the faces were generously listening.
The Humanists intro was pretty good. There were some inconsistencies, some bits of misinformation, and some claims that were slightly puzzling. But it was thoughtful, and it was a far cry from the usual fare of bits-and-parts bickering that usually makes up these discussions. Our opponents, Mr. David Niose and Mr. Brian Seitzman, were both gentlemen, well spoken, and generous.
I was somewhat dismayed that the schedule veered from what I thought it was going to be - instead of a five-minute rebuttal, we were asked to pose questions to the other side. As was evident from the rest of the questions that were posed that night, it was much easier to ask questions of the Catholic side, since there were more substanital issues and stances to which the Church subscribes. Trying to get a Humanist to answer questions about Humanism was somewhat like nailing jello to the wall. What it means to be a Humanist is fairly simple and stated in a few short phrases that do not provide traction for probing inquiry. I would have liked very much to have a few minutes to respond to the claims made by the Humanist side during the debate - especially things surrounding the fractured nature of Christian churches, some bits of misinformation about Christianity, and to discuss the reductionist nature of the Humanist position.
During the Humanists concluding remarks, I had to look down and take notes to prevent saying something like "Oh, my God" really loud. After an hour and change of debate, it was humorous, if exasperating, to hear their primary debater say that there could be no rational basis for religious belief and to basically blame it on a maternal guilt complex. Not shocking, but shocking, at the same time.
I call the debate a success, and here's why: we stated our position cogently without sinning against charity in the course of the debate. Well, I may have venially sinned against charity at several points in the debate, but luckily they only occurred between my ears and I didn't act on any temptation to smack anyone over the head. Victory!
Seriously, it was a success because we went into the lion's den and stated a case while preserving the bonds of charity. I don't care if anyone was converted (I do, really) they should have been!
One particularly difficult moment was when one of the Humanists got up, ostensibly to ask a question, and started reading what I presumed to be quotes from Hitchens' book on Mother Teresa. Total bunk, which was not unusual for the night, but I feel a certain delicacy in matters surrounding Mother Teresa. My response is akin to what one would feel if someone were insulting someone's mother. It is neither gentlemanly nor dignified to comment on such matters, and I feel the best, and most appropriate, response is a bonk on the head. Alas...
But three cheers for the Chestertons for their performance on that memorable evening, and especially for Mr. Michael Hughes, our chosen champion and fidei defensor. He acquitted himself admirably on the field of battle, and has shown himself trusty in pitched intellectual struggle.
The next debate will probably be in January or February of next year. (Mr. Niose, the Humanists' primary, humorously remarked that December is a busy time, even for a Humanist.) My wife recommended a more focused topic. I'm open to all comers - let me know what you think. Oh, and let me know what you're willing to do, as we'll be responsible for far more this time around. We can't be outdone in hospitality by the Humanists, who did, in fact, put on quite a nice evening.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Humanist Debate
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I'd like to solicit your ideas for the upcoming debate with the Greater Worcester Humanists, which is scheduled for Saturday, September 25 at the Unitarian Universalist Church on Shore Drive. As a primer to conversation, I would like to present you with some material from the Humanists' website, outlining the virtues and doctorine of the Humanist movement. You'll remember that the topic of the debate will be "Christianity or Humanism, Which Holds the Better Hope for Humanity". Here are the aforementioned links:
What is Humanism, by Fred Edwords
http://worcester.humanists.net/home/humanism
Humanist Manifesto III - 2003
http://www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III
Humanist Manifesto II - 1973
http://www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_II
Humanist Manifesto I - 1933
http://www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I
Other Humanism Essays and Links
http://www.americanhumanist.org/Who_We_Are/About_Humanism
Michael Hughes and myself will be participating in this first debate. We'll be meeting on August 20th at the Old Timer in Clinton to discuss our strategy, and anyone who is interested in participating on that evening is welcome to provide us with their feedback. We'll also be holding something of a "mock" debate in the course of the meeting on September 11th.
In the meantime, please provide some feedback on the Humanist literature referenced above. The wider the circle of intellectual vision we can bring to this debate, the better off we will be. You can leave your comments by clicking on the link below that says "# COMMENTS". If you have any questions about leaving comments online, shoot me an email.
Best,
AFZ
Prez.
I'd like to solicit your ideas for the upcoming debate with the Greater Worcester Humanists, which is scheduled for Saturday, September 25 at the Unitarian Universalist Church on Shore Drive. As a primer to conversation, I would like to present you with some material from the Humanists' website, outlining the virtues and doctorine of the Humanist movement. You'll remember that the topic of the debate will be "Christianity or Humanism, Which Holds the Better Hope for Humanity". Here are the aforementioned links:
What is Humanism, by Fred Edwords
http://worcester.humanists.net/home/humanism
Humanist Manifesto III - 2003
http://www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III
Humanist Manifesto II - 1973
http://www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_II
Humanist Manifesto I - 1933
http://www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I
Other Humanism Essays and Links
http://www.americanhumanist.org/Who_We_Are/About_Humanism
Michael Hughes and myself will be participating in this first debate. We'll be meeting on August 20th at the Old Timer in Clinton to discuss our strategy, and anyone who is interested in participating on that evening is welcome to provide us with their feedback. We'll also be holding something of a "mock" debate in the course of the meeting on September 11th.
In the meantime, please provide some feedback on the Humanist literature referenced above. The wider the circle of intellectual vision we can bring to this debate, the better off we will be. You can leave your comments by clicking on the link below that says "# COMMENTS". If you have any questions about leaving comments online, shoot me an email.
Best,
AFZ
Prez.
Friday, June 25, 2010
On Localism
The following is an article that was published on the T&G website on my new blog, Locally Grown. I thought you Chestertonians might find it interesting.
Best,
AFZ
Did I mention that I’m an amateur philosopher? Well, I am. I won’t bore you with all of my philosophical meanderings, but I will make some case for the philosophical basis for localism. By 'localism' I mean an emphasis on your immediate community in terms of economics, recreation, and politics. Our culture has become more and more 'global', which is not per se a bad thing. Globalism has brought significant economic growth for large swaths of world population. But, I would argue, globalism has over-extended itself in many areas to the detriment of, again, large swaths of world population.
The guiding principle, for me, in discussions of 'globalism' vs. 'localism' is something called the Principle of Subsidiarity. Subsidiarity states that all institutions should function at the lowest hierarchical level at which they are effective. Stated simply, it says that “Small is Beautiful”. There are some things, like building jets, that can’t be done effectively at a local level. But there are other things, like making hamburgers, that can be done quite well at a local level. And not only can hamburgers be made locally, there will be more benefits to sourcing, producing, and buying your burgers locally.
There are many reasons for this, but here is a briefly stated list that outlines the benefits of buying your burgers (or art supplies, or tires, or real estate services) from a local, independent business:
Best,
AFZ
Did I mention that I’m an amateur philosopher? Well, I am. I won’t bore you with all of my philosophical meanderings, but I will make some case for the philosophical basis for localism. By 'localism' I mean an emphasis on your immediate community in terms of economics, recreation, and politics. Our culture has become more and more 'global', which is not per se a bad thing. Globalism has brought significant economic growth for large swaths of world population. But, I would argue, globalism has over-extended itself in many areas to the detriment of, again, large swaths of world population.
The guiding principle, for me, in discussions of 'globalism' vs. 'localism' is something called the Principle of Subsidiarity. Subsidiarity states that all institutions should function at the lowest hierarchical level at which they are effective. Stated simply, it says that “Small is Beautiful”. There are some things, like building jets, that can’t be done effectively at a local level. But there are other things, like making hamburgers, that can be done quite well at a local level. And not only can hamburgers be made locally, there will be more benefits to sourcing, producing, and buying your burgers locally.
There are many reasons for this, but here is a briefly stated list that outlines the benefits of buying your burgers (or art supplies, or tires, or real estate services) from a local, independent business:
- Several studies have shown that when you buy from an independent, locally owned business, rather than a nationally owned businesses, significantly more of your money is used to make purchases from other local businesses, service providers, and farms - continuing to strengthen the economic base of the community.
- Non-profit organizations receive an average 250% more support from smaller business owners than they do from large businesses.
- Where we shop, where we eat, and have fun - all of it makes our community home. Our one-of-a-kind businesses are an integral part of the distinctive character of this place.
- Locally owned businesses can make more local purchases requiring less transportation and generally set up shop in town or city centers as opposed to developing on the fringe. This generally means contributing less to sprawl, congestion, habitat loss and pollution.
- Small local businesses are the nation's largest employer, and often provide employees with more opportunities for professional growth, personal development, and advancement.
- Local businesses often hire people with a better understanding of the products they are selling and take more time to get to know customers.
- Local businesses are owned by people who live in this community, are less likely to leave, and are more invested in the community’s future.
- Local businesses in town centers require comparatively little infrastructure investment and make more efficient use of public services as compared to nationally owned stores entering the community.
- A marketplace of tens of thousands of small businesses is the best way to ensure innovation and low prices over the long-term. A multitude of small businesses, each selecting products based not on a national sales plan but on their own interests and the needs of their local customers, guarantees a much broader range of product choices.
- A growing body of economic research shows that in an increasingly homogenized world, entrepreneurs and skilled workers are more likely to invest and settle in communities that preserve their one-of-a-kind businesses and distinctive character.
I'm not anti-growth, and as I said, I believe that some businesses best function at a large, international level. But I believe that we have been sold a bill of goods when we are told that it's all about the bottom line. Sure, McDonalds can get me a hamburger in two minutes for 99 cents. But, to paraphrase Hilaire Belloc, "Industrialism has ensured that all over the world men can enjoy exactly the same bad wine." McDonald's has ensured that we all have access to the same bad hamburgers, almost to exclusion.
It's hard to take a stand for localism without some bashing of globalism. But the point is not to bash, but to point out the benefits of local, independent businesses. Personally, I find the investments that I make with local businesses always pay off. Even though I can't buy a can opener anywhere but Wal Mart or Target, there are lots of opportunities to support local businesses. I think it's an investment you won't regret.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Faithful Presence
A fairly interesting discussion of the Christian impact on culture is to be found on Christianity Today's website here.
The article is an interview with James Davison Hunter, author of To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World. Mr. Hunter's primary hypothesis is that cultural impact is not merely a factor of the quantity of material that a group or school contributes to the public sphere, but also a factor of the vehicles by which it arrives there. An interesting contrast brought up in the discussion is the fact that Christian publishing generates revenues of $10 billion annualy but is not at all discussed in the New York Times Review of Books. It is an example of structures of cultural elites controlling access to the cultural discussion.
His prescription is something he calls "Faithful Presence", as well as a thoughtful dialogue with the centers of cultural influence. Both are, I think, Chestertonian in nature.The article is an interview with James Davison Hunter, author of To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World. Mr. Hunter's primary hypothesis is that cultural impact is not merely a factor of the quantity of material that a group or school contributes to the public sphere, but also a factor of the vehicles by which it arrives there. An interesting contrast brought up in the discussion is the fact that Christian publishing generates revenues of $10 billion annualy but is not at all discussed in the New York Times Review of Books. It is an example of structures of cultural elites controlling access to the cultural discussion.
How is it that American public life is so profoundly secular when 85 percent of the population professes to be Christian? If a culture were simply the sum total of beliefs, values, and ideas that ordinary individuals hold, then the United States would be a far more religious society. Looking at our entertainment, politics, economics, media, and education, we are forced to conclude that the cultural influence of Christians is negligible. By contrast, Jews, who compose 3 percent of the population, exert significant cultural influence disproportionate to their numbers, notably in literature, art, science, medicine, and technology. Gays offer another example. Minorities would have no effect if culture were solely about ideas, but that's clearly not the case.
Faithful Presence, in essence, is an abandonment of Nietzschean principles of 'will to power' by allowing Christian influence to permeate society through, well, actual Christian charity. According to Mr. Hunter, looking to change the culture directly is an adoption of the principles of power that Christians are railing against in the first place.
This does not constitute an abandonment of dialogue, but rather an insertion of Christian ideas into the intellectual conversation in a way that is inherently Christian in execution. So not just the end of the intellectual discussion (or the discussion of law, morals, art, etc.) must be Christian, but the means by which that discussion is engaged. The whole process must be recognizable as Christian, throughout.
This is where Mr. Hunter's thinking is reflecting G.K. Chesterton the most. Chesterton was not only known as a Christian in thought, but he was also perceived to be a Christian in his style, manner, bearing, and in all his dealings. He was a joy to be around, even when he disagreed with you.
It reminds me of a maxim of St. Josemaria Escriva: "Be firm in doctorine, but pliant in manner." The combination of charity in thought and deed is thoroughly Chestertonian.
The stakes are high, in that it is our ability to be Christian in the public sphere that is at stake. But I believe that Mr. Hunter's thesis is a useful reflection that reminds us that Our Lord said that as Christians we would be known by our love for each other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
