Weeks after Easter, another Good Friday

On the calendar of the Eastern Church the Resurrection will be celebrated this Sunday morning at 12 AM preceded by a late Saturday night vigil. Tonight- Friday- Eastern churches will have a funeral service commemorating the death of our Lord, complete with flowers and a funeral procession. Church lights will be turned out, candles extinguished, men will go unshaven and many will shed genuine tears. It is a highly emotional service. Everyone will return quietly to their homes and they will carry them an almost electric anticipation of what is to come Sunday morning.

Atomistic Individualism

This way of living, this atomistic individualism, is having a negative effect on my children, how they learn, and how they socialize.


It is fair to say I have been an ardent advocate of engaging modern culture. I am not afraid of it, mostly because I am a part of it.  At least I have tried to be (my inability to participate in family and local art events is controlled by other people. It is easier to control peoples' perception of you if they have no opportunity to speak to you directly). It goes something like this

"It is unfortunate that people see you a certain way."
"Then let me have a chance to be around people and talk without interruption."
"No. They must know only what I tell them. We cannot allow their perception to be distorted with facts."

... but that is another story altogether. I digress.

One begins to realize that engaging modern culture is an obsolescing bargain. There is a point at which it becomes self-defeating. One day and you look back and realize you have absorbed the values of people around you. Or rather than absorbed, you have been consumed by them, as though you were a piece of bread infested with bugs. This is how I felt after leaving a state government job. It took a great deal of soul searching to understand how I had been inculturated.  At first you engage and accept the office culture, complete with attitudes and modes of communication, hoping that it will bring approval from your manager and coworkers, maybe even recognition. After living this way for several years you will have internalized these values and probably not even realize it. You will have let someone else define you and mould you into an image they find preferable.

This illustration applies to the arts community as well. I have seen good people lose their personality, either through drug use or by a total rejection of who they are, and replace it with an amalgam of bits of personalities they encounter, probably for the same reasons of approval. The flag "doing it for the art" is flown with great piety, but the result is not better art.  The result is a perpetuation of a "sameness" over time and a never-ending, vague feeling that some burst of creative activity is just on the cusp of emerging "if only" we do the same thing harder... but the explosive emergence of a "scene" never happens.

If we are honest, it must be acknowledged that there is a self-congratulatory aspect to the artists' assumption that their job is to make the rest of us question our own values, lifestyles, etc. An artist cannot challenge ideas when their own point of view is rife with its own stereotypical generalizations and when they don't understand the non artists' values or ideas to begin with. Instead of playing a paternalistic role for us the unwashed masses, an artistic community needs to recognize mediocrity and sameness even when it exists within themselves.

How does this related to atomistic individualism? This is how: There is a social segregation in the arts community. There is the pressure to accept the notion that in order to be successful you must eventually, as in the office culture example, internalize someone else's unexamined values. In the same way, one allows someone else define to you and mould you into an image they find preferable. The only difference is that is wrapped in artistic language. Within Oklahoma city's art community there are people who have a strong personal interest in maintaining this social segregation.

My children need to feel the earth under their fingernails.  They need to discover that there are different kinds of soil. They need to lay on the ground and watch ants work.  They need to sing songs with people. The life that is shopped to us is vacuous.

Does our culture insulate religious ideas from skepticism?

Do you agree with this? David A. Hollinger of University of California, Berkeley asks whether faith-based politics are given enough scrutiny in American politics. Hollinger writes:

By "giving religious ideas a 'pass' " I refer to the convention of maintaining a discreet silence when one hears a religious idea expressed, no matter how silly it may seem. This convention, which is deeply rooted in the assumption that religion is a private matter, shields religious ideas from the same kind of scrutiny to which we commonly subject ideas about the economy, gender, race, literature, science, art, and virtually everything else...

...Skeptics are expected to refrain from asking the faithful to clarify the epistemic status of the Bible, and from inquiring about the evidentiary basis for the doctrine of the atonement. Arguments within faith communities are allowed (Methodists can challenge one another on whether Paul’s letter to the Romans means that same-sex relationships are contrary to God’s will, Catholics can dispute one another’s opinions about Vatican II, and committed Christians generally can argue over the relevance of the Bible to today’s evolutionary science), but the greater the intellectual distance between the potential critic and the person whose beliefs are at issue, the less socially acceptable it is for the critic to speak candidly.

...When religious ideas are offered as justifications for public policy, those ideas should be subject to the full heat of critical debate. As Harry Truman said in another context, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” What would happen if religious ideas were subjected to such a debate? I want to conclude with some speculations. A robust, critical discussion of religious ideas might encourage popular faiths more consistent with modern standards of plausibility, more conscious of the historicity of all faiths, and more resistant to the manipulation of politicians belonging to any party.

The learned elites of the United States have been too reluctant to honestly engage the American public on the religious grounds that continue to be important in this society, which is by far the most religious in the industrialized North Atlantic West.

A forthright, public debate about religious ideas might reveal that the most important religious divide in the United States today is not between secularists and believers, but between two rather differently constituted parties:

1) a broad dispersion of secularists and classically liberal Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and Muslims and 2) a variety of fundamentalist and evangelical believers whose understanding of scripture, divinity, and science remain oblivious to the critical spirit of the Enlightenment.

Perhaps the salient solidarities are not communities of faith and of unbelief, but of people adhering to modern structures of cognitive plausibility and of people rejecting those structures.

(The above text is excerpted from "Civic Patriotism and the Critical Discussion of Religious Ideas" by David A. Hollinger. Published by Center for American Progress, 2008.)

What do you think? I have my likes and dislikes about his ideas- I'm wondering if anyone else will key in on the same ones.

I'm not sure where David Hollinger thinks there is a "discreet silence" being kept regarding religious ideas when the truth of Christian claims and the reliability of Christian scriptures are constantly being debated in the media. (Hitchens and Dawkins are like rock stars.) Plus, he is a professor at Berkeley, a place where people usually have no problem expressing their skepticism of traditional beliefs.

I also don't know why skeptics should refrain from asking the faithful to clarify certain points of belief. I think that is only natural and should be welcomed. If someone does not elaborate on a religious idea because they think it is silly, I would interpret that as simply being respectful.  At some point everyone finds something silly in another belief system (and sometimes even in their own!); it only seems polite to not make a public spectacle out of it. Let's not agonized over points of disagreements at the expense of enjoying each others' company.

I would take Hollinger's idea a step further:  I feel that the Christian conservatives are not prepared for skeptical dialogue.  Because it is  too easy to turn inward and be exclusive, it simply doesn't happen enough. To illustrate my point, the authors I mentioned above, Hitchens and Dawkins, are almost unknown in Christian circles.  Then one day the young people encounter the New Atheists and learn they have not been prepared. Oh, they know more than enough about conservative politics but they discover that being a staunch political conservative has done nothing to help them defend their faith in the public arena. So I agree with Hollinger that more skepticism is a good thing.

David A. Holling (of University of California, Berkeley) argues that rigorous scrutiny of faith-based politics might reveal that the real division in the United States is not between secularists and believers, but between the following two parties:

"1) a broad dispersion of secularists and classically liberal Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and Muslims and 2) a variety of fundamentalist and evangelical believers whose understanding of scripture, divinity, and science remain oblivious to the critical spirit of the Enlightenment."

This is where I disagree with Holling.  His characterization of religious groups in America is too simplistic.  He has conveniently made fundamentalist and evangelical Christians the great anti-intellectual obstacle that impedes progress in America, while the rest of us all work easily together.  Evangelical Christianity is too diverse in both politics and in their views on spirituality. In fact over the past 10 years international NGOs have seen increased interest and support from evangelical Christians, an area typically dominated by the political left.  He suggests that "fundamentalist and evangelical believers" have the monopoly on being "oblivious to the critical spirit of the Enlightenment." Most would agree that there are Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim groups that fall in this category too.  Though it is fair to point out that Jewish and Muslim groups of this kind will still identify with the left out of a mistrust of the religious right's political influence.

There is the sentiment in the United States that if Christianity is properly understood one will feel obligated to throw their lot in with the Republican Party.  Partly for this reason the Republican Party is highly identified with evangelical Christianity.  Perhaps this is what Holling is talking about in the first place; that social conservatism seems to alienate just about every other religious belief, regardless of how conservative they might actually be. Still, those reactionaries actually opposed to scientific and enlightenment thought are way too few to affect policy on a national level.  I believe it is the case that faith based politics has an appeal to a wider spectrum of belief, including nominal church goers and "paleo-conservatives" (i.e those who might even be skeptics yet value the place of traditional institutions).

I believe we will actually see greater skepticism of faith-based politics come from traditionalist Christians in the coming years (at least on certain issues), but that's too much to go into here.

Unbelief and Being in Church

I revisited an old post "Lord, I Have Cried" written by a friend Michael Astley. His experience with unbelief sparked memories of my own struggles. It is interesting that as I type this, it occurs to me that I've not struggled with or thought about this topic in a long time. Those who left comments on Michael's post were correct when they described unbelief as a lonely and dark place. That is precisely how I would describe it as well.

As I confronted and grappled with my own unbelief, it seemed it only made my emotional state worse. I learned rather to accept it just as I would accept being angry for a time, or accept feelings of jealousy over something. I understand this may seem too simplistic especially given that unbelief has the power to change your relationships whereas anger and jealousy have a way of working themselves out. Yet treating unbelief as a simple emotion or just another passion is how I've learned to deal with it. In other words, regardless of how ominous unbelief may seem, I have stopped letting my feelings push me into a crisis. On the contrary I say, "It seems I'm having trouble believing in you God. If you are really there, please understand as I work through this again". 

But what sense does it make to stand in a church chanting old psalms when you've stopped believing in the words? This is where I would part ways with today's crowd of modern, chic atheists.  Over time I carved out my own response: Unbelief does not negate the fact that when I read the Psalms and prayers I am gradually absorbing some of the most beautiful and heartfelt introspection expressed by the human race. Regardless of what I do or do not believe, my first hand experience tells me I am part of something profoundly beautiful and ancient. I have been given the privilege of joining myself to a 2000 year old spiritual tradition- a tradition that gave us outstanding works of literature such as St. Ephrem the Syrian and the Philokalia; a tradition that inspired great feats of charity and humanitarianism. I've learned that in my worst periods of doubt I still cannot help but love the Church.  As Michael Astley said: "I could never leave - not ever." You may doubt God but you cannot doubt the presence and power of beauty.

Unanticipated visitors

To those who are reading this blog from the Vatican: Welcome! I am humbled. 

22 Dec

04:01:56 AM

IE 8.0 WinXP 1280x1024

Holy See (Vatican City State)

Holy See - Vatican City State (212.77.0.160) [Label IP Address]  justinmartyr.blogspot.com (No referring link)

i kiss her true lips gently in the morning

i kiss her true lips
gently in the morning
it is the only spear
is the only arrow
the last blade
last amulet
against the raging foreigner
and narcissist shiva who devours
and that makes art dull
that makes souls shallow
makes the rich predatory
and buries true gemstones
that celebrates the death of true love on command
i kiss her true lips
gently in the morning
it is the only spear

The Ancients on Friendship- Marcus Aurelius Antoninus

Whenever you desire to cheer yourself, think upon the merits of those who are alive with you; the energy of one, for instance, the modesty of another, the generosity of a third, of another some other gift. For nothing is so cheering as the images of the virtues shining in the character of your contemporaries, and meeting together as much as possible in a group. Therefore you should keep them ready at your hand.

-Marcus Aurelius "Meditations VI"

Free Love, the Oklahoma art scene, and all the Herman Cains out there

The dirty secret behind the push for sexual freedoms is that it was not about freedom at all.  On the contrary it was about convincing women by a long slow process to give up their ideals of commitment and make any romantic feelings they had seem inadequate, weak, and unsophisticated. Thus in the 1960s we see pop culture dismissing "sentimentality" in regards to marriage, religion, holidays, etc. It is not a coincidence that these things which are dismissed are the very things that help cement the family experience.

The women I've talked to about this agree that the sexual and relationship power held by women is at its strongest within the context of the family traditions, courtship, and religion (with the understanding that "power" here does not imply a power struggle or antagonism).  "Free love" and Hugh Hefner's playboy culture of the 1960s sought to discredit these areas where the female sense of commitment was actually confirmed and empowered. 

If these traditional things which confirm and empower the female instincts of commitment could be discredited, then it will be far easier to increase the number of your sexual partners. No longer does a lecherous man have to labor at eroding a woman's sense of commitment. Most of the work has already been done for him. From a biological point of view, is it not typically the male who pursues and the female who determines whether or not sex happens? The effort in the 1960s was to change this dynamic and give men as much of the decision-making power as possible.

The best quote was recently sent to me by a mother after we discussed this topic- Not protecting our daughters from a permissive society allows them to be preyed upon in ways we have yet to understand.

The world is full of Herman Cains. I know some myself: Wealthy men who understand how awkward it is to be asking for young girls phone numbers outside of clubs in a town where everyone knows he is married. The solution to this awkwardness? Get rid of the wife. The next woman to step up is the local showcase of gullibility. All for the amusement of these wealthy men who throw money at desperate artists and pride themselves at traveling out of town with other men's wives.

Thoughts on Christian texts and their transmission

When scholars speak of "tampering" and "interpolations" we may get the impression that Christianity has been inventing its own stories or making things up as it goes along. Indeed, popular culture reinforces this. I know from first hand experience that the art community insists upon it. However, when a text- or a set of pericopae covering similar topics- regardless of their origin, are reiterated together it is likely they are considered to have spiritual value along a common theme. These in turn may be further redacted or transmitted in altered forms in the same way scripture readings and hymns are re-set together in lectionaries. ("Apocryphal" doesn't necessarily describe the historic Church's treatment of extra-biblical texts so much as it describes modern scholars' and modern Christianity's treatment of them).

Consider an analogy: Archeologists may debate the process and details of glassmaking in colonial Williamsburg but one may also visit live glassblowing demonstrations and experience the process firsthand. A visceral experience, though out of time, may give the observer insights regarding the intentions and decisions made by colonial glass artisans in a way that scientific methodology cannot. Similarly, observing the liturgical and devotional use of ancient Christian texts (which can entail its own kinds of "tampering" and "interpolations") can offer insights into the intentions and decisions made by ancient authors. Conspiracy and nefarious legend-building fall away quickly when it is understood that the written word we see in manuscript form insufficiently reflects a tradition of building imagery through liturgical song and finding poetic beauty in ascetic practice.

Are Christian writings evaluated fairly?

The Ehrman Project Blog addresses a question I've often wondered about; whether or not historical Christian documents are evaluated by the same standards of writings from other religions. The Ehrman Project is an evangelical site dedicated to providing answers- not to general critisms of New Testament reliability- but rather to Bart Ehrman's critique of New Testament scriptures. The site doesn't target Ehrman himself but is a response to be a media personality cult built around him. An inquirer poses this question:

"... Irish legends dating back to the middle ages tell of magical and powerful races that inhabited Ireland before the arrival of the Gaels. Scholars consider this to be how that culture "remembered" historical waves of migration on the island. Also stories of Mesopotamian gods and patriarchs (such as Cain and Abel) record the rivalry between the farmer and the herder. In other words it seems to be generally accepted that the mythological stories so important to ancient cultures have some basis in historical fact, thought the details may be lost.

The exception seems to be New Testament scholarship. Stories such as the Magi, the census in Luke, and the resurrection are seen as simple fabrications... The assumption seems to be that the Gospels have cobbled together a series of fabrications, unless of course the exact details are found in other (preferably) non-Christian sources... Are early Christian writings really evaluated by a different standard than writings from other cultures and other religions?

The Ehrman Project objects to the inquirer's implication that New Testament accounts are "on the same level" as cultural legends, this is, merely embellishments layered over kernels of truth. I honestly do not see how the people at the Ehrman Project drew that conclusion. The inquirer is simply drawing a contrast between two widely different forms of literature and how they are treated. The entire first section of the response preaches to the choir, trying to convince the inquirer of something he is already convinced of- that the New Testament is fundamentally different in nature from cultural legends. (Paul, too, insists that the core events of the Christian message—the death, burial, resurrection, and reappearance of Jesus of Nazareth—are not only significant; they are also verifiably true.) But the Ehrman Project continues with a response that should be very interesting to believers who intend to enter academia and those who casually read best sellers by pop-experts:

Many New Testament scholars do indeed seem to have a bias against New Testament “history” as being unworthy of that name.  They seem to hold the New Testament documents to a different standard of reliability than they hold classical documents to.  F.F. Bruce, professor of New Testament at the University of Manchester in England... did see a bias in the evaluation of the New Testament documents in Religion Departments at universities that he did not see in Classics or History Departments. By the standards employed in the latter departments, the New Testament documents come off looking much stronger in their claims to historical reliability than the accepted documents of ancient Greek and Roman history, and yet no one disputes the basic trustworthiness of these sources for conveying the gist of what happened.

Full post can be read here