Toward Attention

The Tower and the Wastes, Interlude 1

The Tower's glassy exterior proclaims a war on secrecy even as it affirms that all is laid bare; curiously, one only sees one's own reflection on its surface.

The appropriate interior for such a buiding is to be littered with cubicles, which offer no privacy, or else to have large windows on the walls of the office-rooms, so that nothing is hidden.

"Your call may be monitored for quality assurance" --but you'd likely never know.

Four Things (On Clerical Formation)

Four things will never mix well: the Academy, the Mechanic's Shop, the Administrative Office, and the Monastery. In any hybrid, one will be dominant. In examining our curriculum, should examine what kind of outcome we wish for our students. In forming clergy, we should ask ourselves what is primary before setting up a curriculum -- if a curriculum is the primary thing needed.

Secularization seems to make greater inroads when the bishop is separated from the charismatic office and implements canons as an aloof administrator with subsidiary mechanic-priests, likewise aloof. This is a perversion of Catholicism when it happens there (less so today with Catholic priests in America than it was 50 years ago), and when it happens to Orthodox bishops it is a perversion of Orthodoxy likewise. In all communities where this occurs (at least in the US), Nominalism seems to be more widespread.

Thinking about the situation last year in a Roman Catholic hospital, and the kind of response that the bishop gave, it seems clear that he was formed as an Administrator with secondary training in the Mechanic's Shop and tertiary training in the Academy (perhaps I have the 2nd and 3rd swapped). Traditionally, the Academy has had a very strong place in clerical formation amongst Roman Catholics. Unfortunately, it has for too long been separated from those, like the Carthusians, who are serious about their ascetical life. (According to Roman Catholic Canon Law, of course, such a bifurcation is abberrant, for all priests are expected to say a Mass daily, and to keep the hours -- clear indications of the mystical function that is at the heart of the priestly office.) Administrative concerns can always peripheralize the other three of the four things. Roman Catholics are not alone in being vulnerable to this.

Protestants have traditionally seen the Academy as the center of clerical training (if I am not mistaken, the original Reformers would not wear clerical vestments during the services, but only their academic robes), and only recently have some of the Revivalist schools of thought been sliding more towards a more Mechanic's Shop/Administrative Office hybrid (i.e., "Purpose Driven Life" and other marketed programs and megachurch setups) or else to Mechanic's Shop/Monastery setups (a rarer breed have been focusing on spiritual disciplines and retreats, etc.).

I wonder: what is the vision of clerical formation operative within Orthodoxy? Traditionally it has been all over the map, with strong emphasis on Monastery as the primary with Academy as secondary -- though this prioritizing seems artificial when applied to many historical figures, who were both/and as well as brilliant Administrators with a Mechanic's genius.

Still, I don't doubt the helpfulness of this heuristic, even with its failings.  What do we want?

Theodore of Mopsuestia on Psalm 1

"There are therefore two things that contribute to a person's attaining beatitude: correct views on doctrine, for the purpose of having a dutiful and upright attitude toward God, and a disciplined moral upbringing, for living in an honorable and sound manner. Neither suffices for perfection without the other, each being supplemented or accompanied by the other; faith takes pride of place among them, just as in the body the head is given greater esteem than the other members. Still, for a person's perfection, relationship with the other members and conjunction of the limbs also are required; likewise, for the full development of life, both these things must come together -- namely, faith and life. To the perfect, a grasp of faith is no easy or simple thing, but its retention is easy. the pattern of life, on the other hand, which shows readiness to understand and emerges both in a desire for good things and in a flight from bad things in understanding everything, is a quality involving no little effort aned exertion. Sometimes, however, an approach by life to faith deservedly opens up, and on the other hand its way to perfect knowledge is blocked by sin, for by sin, as though by a kind of darkness, the genuineness and purity of its lifestyle are interfered with and obscured."

From this book here.

If anyone is inclined to disregard this fourth-century writer on account of the calumny later thrown upon him, consider the high esteem he was held in even by holy men (St. John Chrysostom, if I'm not mistaken, commended him to an emperor as the, or one of the, most learned men in the world -- if I'm not mistaken).

God's Commandment is His Nature

"Saintly humility is something that transcends nature, and an unbeliever cannot achieve it, but thinks that it is contrary to nature. St. Dionysius the Areopagite speaks of this when writing to St. Timothy about such men: he says that to the ancients the resurrection of the dead appeared contrary to nature, whereas to himself and to St. Timothy -- and in the eyes of the truth itself -- it is not contrary to nature, but it transcends nature. This at least is how it looks to us; in God's eyes, however, it does not transcend nature, but is quite nautral; for God's commandment is His nature."

St. Peter of Damascus, Philokalia Vol.3, p.267

The Situation Last Year at St. Joseph's Hospital in Pheonix, AZ

I was disappointed to read about this today. I know I'm a year behind, but that's the price you pay for either WoW-ing, tending to a young child, or doing substantial reading -- and not being distracted by the endless stream of current-event chatter that can't help but tend towards superficiality on account of its perpetuality, it's inability to truly linger and reflect or draw out a discussion for hours and hours or even days or weeks.

The issue seems straightforward if you read articles on it like this from Ms. Magazine, which is the first one I read. Sadly, the Ms. article doesn't ever address the principle that seems to be at the root of the Catholic policy involved, which was cited on the Wikipedia entry I linked to above: "The unborn child can never be thought of as a pathology or an illness," Fr. John Ehrich is reported to have said on the Wikipedia page, whose source is here. “That is, the child is not that which threatens the life of the mother, rather it is the pathology or illness (cancer, premature rupture of membranes, hypertension, preeclampsia, etc.) which threatens the mother’s life.” Why didn't Ms. even cite this principle, much less attempt to either refute it or to show how the Catholic Bishops' policy does not necessarily or reasonably flow from it? I don't understand.

There are at least two features of the Catholic Bishops' position that worry me, however, and these not specifically to this case, but generally as trends.

The first has to do with the "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services," the document issued by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops concerning medical policy. Directive 45 got my attention, which reads:

"Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion, which, in its moral context, includes the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo. Catholic health care institutions are not to provide abortion services, even based upon the principle of material cooperation."

This seemed to me, when I read it before reading Fr. John Ehrich's statement (above), like a good principle gone ideologically too far. Surely we aren't affirming abortions just because we say that there are situations where they are the best possible option?

The second has to do with matters of controlling outcomes, and when this is appropriate.

Adding that "no physician can predict what will happen with 100 percent accuracy," Father Ehrich said, "What we should not do ... is lower risks associated with pregnancy by aborting children. ... When we try to control every possible situation in life, we end up playing the role of God."

This last line seems to deflate his entire case. The principle of not seeing the unborn child as a pathology or an illness seems sound: surely everyone can agree on that, no? --However, we have the power to control outcomes, and we will continue to do so. Surely controlling outcomes is not evil in and of itself, and manipulating as many outcomes as we can for the best effects also can't be unethical: aren't we called upon to do this in our own ascetical life? --but if it is claimed that mastery of the world means usurping God's power, I must ask whether either God is unworthy of our attention (since He would then be weak and evil) or if the claimant is fundamentally misinformed about the nature of God's power. There must be things that happen which God does not will. The slaughter of the Holy Innocents comes to mind.

The situation does not present itself as one in which men ought to relinquish power to God: it looks like one in which there are several possible outcomes that can reasonably be secured through technological interventions. Chance and necessity (and freedom that can elect this-or-that necessity), not Providence vs. human liberty, is the model here. Modernity is all about controlling outcomes to secure human flourishing. If the Catholic model cannot address Modernity's concerns, it will write itself into irrelevancy.

Regardless, perhaps the abortion didn't need to be performed. Perhaps both mother and daughter could have survived -- I don't know. But if they couldn't, surely the loss of the mother's life would be more traumatic for the family and all involved than the loss of the child -- and doubtless the mother did not want an abortion. (Who gets pregnant multiple times, aiming at an abortion?)

I dunno. I've only read about this for 10 minutes. It made me think that perhaps the Bishops should simply be Bishops, tending to their flocks concerning ethical and spiritual matters, rather than corporate administrators of institutions.

Happy -- In This Life, As Well

"Happy is the Christian who studies and follows the teaching of Christ. He is happy in this temporary life and in the life after death. Yes, he will  be happy after death, because the soul does not vanish after death, is not perishable like the body, but continues to live, to exist. Through death, it is simply separated from the perishable body."

St. Raphael of Lesvos.

(That should offer pause to those few sickly souls who would suggest that the commandments, though sometimes painful, do not yield joy in this life, and that we should simply suffer while awaiting our cookie in the next life.)

A Question

In St. John's Gospel, as well as in the epistles under his name, it is very clearly written that people who do not come to Christ refrain because they are full of darkness and are wicked, hating the light.

I was reading a review of Paul Copan's book, Is God a Moral Monster?, and the reviewer (George P. Wood) noted that Copan justified God's ethnic cleansing of the Canaanites on the grounds that they were a threat to the cultic purity of the Israelites.

Now I obviously don't endorse genocide, and the Fathers read these passages allegorically, but this treatment by Mr. Copan prompts a question that I keep failing to articulate well, but which nonetheless I sense clearly enough to trouble me: is their a publicly demonstrable connection between Israelite/Christian faith and the Good? --or rather, can we make a publically justifiable case that those who refrain from the worship of God necessarily do so either out of damage, ignorance, or wickedness? It is easy to assert this, and to make such assertions into tribal boundary markers, but that doesn't mean that we actually understand anything. Is it possible that someone could hate what is holy, and that this is demonstrably a character flaw or even an ethical evil? Is there a demonstrable connection between religious purity (not simply "Legalistic" religious purity) and ethical integrity? I know that many of our brightest have thought so, and it has sometimes appeared so to me, but I have only had a handful of moments where it has been self-evident to me, and I have never written down my thoughts in such a moment (that I can recall), and so I can never hold on to the exact reasoning in my head afterwards or recall it by means of having committed it to writing in the moment of felt insight.

A Thought

The saints are Christ's own self-exegesis.

St. Irenaeus on the Lord's Visible Ascension

From St. Irenaeus' Against the Heresies, XXXII.3:

It is certain, too, from the fact that the Lord rose from the dead on the third day, and manifested Himself to His disciples, and was in their sight received up into heaven [...]

The context is irrelevant, for the only thing I wish to point out is that St. Irenaeus actually thinks that the apostles saw Jesus go up into the sky. Not in some spiritual vision, but with the beautiful, evolved, fleshly peepers in their noggin's. 

This is a major stumbling block to me.

I have days where I suspect that a major (certainly not the major) reason why people continue going to Church on Sunday is because they've never really thought about things like this, never considered how unbelievable such assertions make the whole thing appear, regardless of one's spiritual encounter with the Risen Christ, regardless of the beauty of the Lord's precepts, etc.

I'll publish something more edifying soon.

Charles Finney and Calvinism

Last night I came across Charles Finney's name -- some Calvinist had made a DVD and titled it "Beware of False Prophets: Charles Finney [etc., etc.]," and had put up an advertisement for this DVD on a webpage that I was looking at for some reason I can no longer remember. I didn't see a single excerpt from the DVD, but I was curious who Charles Finney was (I remember seeing his name a great number of times in relation to Protestantism), so I looked him up on Wikipedia.

Interesting -- he looks to be the father of evangelicalism/Revivalism in North America. He was also a Presbyterian, and not a Calvinist. It looks as though the DVD was made by Calvinists who "want people to know that Finney perverted the pure Gospel," etc. An excerpt from his journal on these issues:

I have spoken at considerable length of my protracted controversy with my theological teacher, Mr. Gale. Upon reflection I think that I should state a little more definitely some of the points upon which we had so much discussion. I could not receive that theological fiction of imputation. I will state, as nearly as I can, the exact ground that he maintained and insisted upon. First, he maintained that the guilt of Adam's first transgression is literally imputed to all his posterity; so that they are justly sentenced and exposed to eternal damnation for Adam's sin. Secondly, he maintained that we received from Adam, by natural generation, a nature wholly sinful, and morally corrupt in every faculty of soul and body; so that we are totally unable to perform any act acceptable to God, and are necessitated by our sinful nature to transgress His law, in every action of our lives. And this, he insisted, is the estate into which all men fell by the first sin of Adam. For this sinful nature, thus received from Adam by natural generation, all mankind are also sentenced to, and are deserving of, eternal damnation. Then, thirdly, in addition to this, he maintained that we are all justly condemned and sentenced to eternal damnation for our own unavoidable transgression of the law. Thus we find ourselves justly subject to a triple eternal damnation.

Then the second branch of this wonderful imputation is as follows: The sin of all the elect, both original and actual--that is, the guilt of Adam's sin, together with the guilt of their sinful nature, and also the guilt of their personal transgressions, are all literally imputed to Christ; and therefore the divine government regarded Him as an embodiment of all the sins and guilt of the elect, and treated Him accordingly; that is, the Father punished the Son precisely as much as all the elect deserved. Hence their debt being thus fully discharged by the punishment of Christ, they are saved upon principles of exact justice.

The third branch of this wonderful theological fiction is as follows: First, the obedience of Christ to the divine law is literally imputed to the elect; so that in Him they are regarded as having always perfectly obeyed the law. Secondly, His death for them is also imputed to the elect; so that in Him they are regarded as having fully suffered all that they deserve on account of the guilt of Adam's sin imputed to them, and on account of their sinful nature, and also on account of all their personal transgressions. Thirdly, thus by their Surety the elect have first perfectly obeyed the law; and then they have by and in their Surety suffered the full penalty to which they were subject in consequence of the guilt of Adam's sin imputed to them, and also the guilt of their sinful nature, with all their blameworthiness for their personal transgressions. Thus they have suffered in Christ, just as if they had not obeyed in Him. He, first, perfectly obeys for them, which obedience is strictly imputed to them, so that they are regarded by the government of God as having fully obeyed in their Surety; secondly, He has suffered for them the penalty of the law, just as if no obedience had been rendered; thirdly, after the law has been doubly satisfied, the elect are required to repent as if no satisfaction had been rendered; fourthly, payment in full having been rendered twice over, the discharge of the elect is claimed to be an act of infinite grace. Thus the elect are saved by grace on principles of justice, so that there is strictly no grace or mercy in our forgiveness, but the whole grace of our salvation is found in the obedience and sufferings of Christ.

It follows that the elect may demand their discharge on the score of strict justice. They need not pray for pardon or forgiveness; it is all a mistake to do so. This inference is my own; but it follows, as everyone can see, irresistibly, from what the Confession of Faith itself asserts, that the elect are saved on principles of exact and perfect justice.

I found it impossible to agree with Mr. Gale on these points. I could not but regard and treat this whole question of imputation as a theological fiction. Upon these points we had constant discussion, in some shape, during the whole course of my study.

The whole journal entry for this particular matter of Mr. Gale and Calvinism can be found here. It's not long, and very enjoyable to read.