Modernity as Confinement

     Ryan Anderson of the Witherspoon Institute, a frequent contributor to First Things and other journals theological and political, has just sent around this review of Joseph Murphy's Christ, Our Joy, a book on Pope Benedict's theology of just that indescribable experience that transcends even what we mean by happiness.  It's a fine and wise review, reminding us that the question Benedict asks of modern man, which modern man cannot answer, is, "How, or where, or in whom, can we find not simply contentment or good health or resignation to decay and death, but joy?"

     Why can modern man not answer that question?  We might enumerate the stutters.  "Joy is only a passing neural state," and is therefore as insignificant as a nice breeze on a pleasant afternoon.  But anyone who has known joy will smile at so sophomoric a dismissal of an experience which we would give all we have to know again, and to keep forever.  For joy is, far from being induced by physical well-being, often to be found in the very heart of grief, or on a bloody battlefield when the bullets are whistling (so soldiers have told me).  "Joy is only a feeling, like exuberance."  But we don't experience it as a feeling.  The person caught up in joy seems instead to be amid something real that extends from God to the smallest grain of dust; as soon as you say to yourself, "I am feeling joy," the experience, which is akin to losing yourself and all your noisy needs, begins to fade.

     If we define modernity as characterized by the attempt to put all things, even man, under man's direct and presumably rational control, so as to engineer order, happiness, peace, and full bellies -- a "machine for living," an apartment by LeCorbusier, constructed for all our cultural institutions, even for the soul -- then we see that by its nature modernity can have nothing to do with joy, just as it can have nothing to do with what Joseph Pieper calls leisure, and nothing to do with thanksgiving, and surrendering one's heart and mind to God.  That's because joy must always be something of a golden surprise, as of a great lion stalking us from behind.  I've written in the pages of Touchstone that if you plan an adventure, you are not on an adventure, and if you and your comrades decide to form a village, you form no village but a clique.  That was in an article delimiting the just confines of "choice."  I see I might have gone farther.  To the extent that modernity produces a people who conceive of their lives only in terms of rational choices, to that same extent it produces people incapable of leisure, and insensible to joy.  You don't find joy, but it finds you, or would find you, if you adopted the attitude of surrender to it.  In that sense, joy mirrors the praise of God, or the surge of delight in the presence of the beloved.  Even if we should pore for hours over a blank paper as we sought the words to express God's grandeur, or the beauty of someone named Beatrice, it would all be wooden, dead, a regular little prisonhouse of words, if we were not really playing, or allowing the Muse to play upon us.

     "Modernity as Confinement" is also the subtitle of philosopher Philippe Benetton's book, Equality.  I recommend that work enthusiastically.  Modern man not only lives indoors, poor fellow.  He lives without the spiritual break -- and I mean the word "break" here in its most physical sense, as if a divine battering ram should smash through the work week -- of a genuine holy day.  He cannot admit surrender to what is greater than himself; the same people who will not concede the superior power of beauty in another will find it hard to find it in God above, and so will attempt to re-image God after the fashion of their own prison cells.  That is, if God is above us, so much the worse for Him; we will reduce Him to the divine sanctioner of our own insistence upon the Universal Flatness.  We will give everyone an opportunity to speak, and then will rob the speech of any import, insisting that one opinion on matters of goodness and beauty is only as valid as another, meaning that none of them are worth a damn at all.  We insist on the right to be different, and then, says Benetton, we claim that the differences make no difference.  We give out the license to bed down with whomever we please, and then concede that talk about "love" is only talk about a private, often capricious feeling, even an appetite -- confining it to the person who happens to feel it, for the time wherein the feeling is present.

     We pride ourselves upon our independence, who live alone, in dead-bolted apartments, hanged by the neck until half dead with luxuries we don't enjoy and jobs we are not interested in, among people we don't like.  Children may come along, those most powerful catapults against the fortresses of our self-sufficiency, but we shoulder them out of the way, and shut them up in some asylum or other where they will be taken care of, for a few hours between confinement and confinement.  We have spare time, not leisure; we flee the freedom of not having something "important" to do as if it were a snake offering us the chance to go back to Eden.  Our laughter is not the free and openhearted laughter of people caught up in joy; there is nothing "silly" about it in the wonderful old sense of the word, both foolish and blessed at once.  Nothing is farther from joy than a snicker.

     In the end, there can be no joy so long as we are wrapped in ourselves, and modernity has nothing, nothing at all, with which to pierce that cocoon; instead, it has called the cocoon "self-fulfillment" and has used it as the model for its non-society of separate, lonely, dependable, sleeping larvae.  Christ is our Joy -- pure gift, demanding pure, liberating surrender.

    

Comments

[Bill R]

Joy is God's magic and transformative wand: touch knowledge with it and see faith arise; touch desire and see hope unfold; touch selflessness and see love burst forth; touch duty and see good works flow unbidden.

[Kamilla]

Does the phrase, "terrible beauty" make any sense? It's the only thing that I remember which kept occurring to me while on a trip through the mountains during those awful, terrible days before my father died. We passed through a desolate landscape that still had a terrible sort of beauty about it - and it occurred to me that there is a kind of terrible beauty that only visits us during those times of utter horribleness. So many things are flattened and dulled while others are brought into sharp focus.

Does that make any sense?

Kamilla

[Ethan C.]

That's a wonderful thought, Bill. I'll have to ponder it.

And Tony, thanks as ever for a beautiful post.

[Bill R]

"Does that make any sense?"

Yes. I recall my astronomy class in college. Our field trip at night, looking at the blue, remote nebulae though a telescope lens. Remote, ineffable: a terrible beauty only God could fully know. "What is man that you are mindful of him?!"

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>If we define modernity as characterized by the attempt to put all things, even man, under man's direct and presumably rational control, so as to engineer order, happiness, peace, and full bellies -- a "machine for living," an apartment by LeCorbusier, constructed for all our cultural institutions, even for the soul -- then we see that by its nature modernity can have nothing to do with joy, just as it can have nothing to do with what Joseph Pieper calls leisure, and nothing to do with thanksgiving, and surrendering one's heart and mind to God.<<<

That's not modernity, that modernism. Modernity is simply the trappings of modern life, with which one can do as one pleases.

>>> "How, or where, or in whom, can we find not simply contentment or good health or resignation to decay and death, but joy?"<<<

Need I point out that our age is no different than any other age, in finding the answer to that question--or, more precisely, to living in accord with the true answer?

>>>We pride ourselves upon our independence, who live alone, in dead-bolted apartments, hanged by the neck until half dead with luxuries we don't enjoy and jobs we are not interested in, among people we don't like. Children may come along, those most powerful catapults against the fortresses of our self-sufficiency, but we shoulder them out of the way, and shut them up in some asylum or other where they will be taken care of, for a few hours between confinement and confinement. <<<<

Who are these awful people with whom you live, Tony? Maybe you should move somewhere else. At the same time, look at the past more objectively, and realize that pre-modern man faced many of the same problems, albeit from slightly different dimensions. Pre-modern man was plagued by physical insecurity to a degree that we can only imagine. The Middle Ages was a time of endemic violence, against which ordinary people had no real defense. They weren't, for the most part, drowning in luxury, but suffered constantly from material want, not the least being things we take for granted--food, clothing, shelter. Death was a constant companion, in a way we will never know, because thanks to modernity, we now survive with a five dollar dose of antibiotics or a ten dollar vaccination, diseases which would have killed us overnight. We don't have leisure--but except for a small aristocratic caste which lived off the labor of the many, neither did pre-modern man. And of those who did have the freedom from backbreaking physical labor, the vast majority were no more introspective than their horses.

Yes, God was everywhere, but not in a very attractive way. Looking at their Christian faith, we would see a lot more fear and superstition, a lot less real spirituality and piety. We have our false gods, they had theirs.

The problems facing modern society are transcendent and rooted in the fall of man. It is an error to think that in this, our ancestors somehow had something up on us. They had their problems, many of which parallel ours, some of which were unique to their time and place.

Our unique challenge is we have, for the most part, eliminated material want in the developed world. Even in the vicious, dog-eat-dog economy of the United States, no person need go to sleep hungry, or in need of clothing, shelter or medical care (and yes, I am saying that those who do have none but themselves to blame). Tony's point is we haven't made good use of this blessing. Well, what of it? Man has never made good use of his blessings. On the other hand, the blessings of modernity do create the opportunity--the freedom from material want and backbreaking drudgery--that can allow the majority of people, if they so choose, to "find not simply contentment or good health or resignation to decay and death, but joy".

The key is not railing against modernity per se, but encouraging people to use what modernity provides to seek after deeper meaning in life.

[David Gray]

>At the same time, look at the past more objectively, and realize that pre-modern man faced many of the same problems, albeit from slightly different dimensions.

Stuart, we have witnessed your error in this matter before.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

I appreciate Stuart providing an "iron-sharpening-iron" corrective to Tony's short essay.

[Beth from TN]

Kamilla, read Charles Williams' _Descent into Hell_. "Terrible beauty" is a persistent theme throughout it.

[Rob G]

Wow, Stuart. I never realized that no one on Earth was happy until the Industrial Revolution. Who knew?

"That's not modernity, that modernism. Modernity is simply the trappings of modern life, with which one can do as one pleases. "

The two, I think, are not unrelated. Overattention to the trappings is a result of both their nature and their abundance. Supply creates its own demand. People come to believe that their happiness lies in accumulating stuff, which lie the purveyors of stuff have no qualms about spreading, as it fattens their coffers. Thus we're back to bread and circuses again, the difference being that our contemporary bread and circuses offer much more variety.

Basically, the message here is, "Hey, your families are falling apart, ennui is rampant, people are feeling rootless and disconnected, young people are mutilating themselves to get attention or out of sheer boredom, and pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry, but hey, look at all the nice stuff you have!"

[Judy K. Warner]

>>>Yes. I recall my astronomy class in college. Our field trip at night, looking at the blue, remote nebulae though a telescope lens. Remote, ineffable: a terrible beauty only God could fully know. "What is man that you are mindful of him?!"<<<

I recall feeling that way in the opposite direction. In one of the few science courses I took at a college level, introductory biology, I looked at some paramecia through a microscope and felt the most intense awe and joy that these things had been created as part of our world, beneath our everyday awareness, moving around in their own way which was so different from ours, and so beautiful.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Wow, Stuart. I never realized that no one on Earth was happy until the Industrial Revolution. Who knew?<<<

More to the point, did you ever thing that AFTER the industrial revolution that there were a lot more people who were happy?

>>>Overattention to the trappings is a result of both their nature and their abundance. Supply creates its own demand. <<<

And how is this different from any other time, save that the ability to attain this abundance is now open to a much broader swath of society than in the past? The poorest person in the United States today has a better standard of living that any medieval king (and how many of them were happy, by the way?). Your objection seems to be that the industrial age has liberated people from the constant struggle for material existence, and they haven't used that in a spiritually or intellectually appropriate manner. I'm shocked, shocked, do you hear! To discover that the ordinary run of human being is not a platonic philosopher-king. But at least today far more people have the opportunity to live the examined life than did in the past--and they don't have to do that on the backs of hundreds or thousands of others.

Tony knows the dirty little secret of the Ancients--the great works of philosophy, poetry, theater, history--all of them were made possible because of the availability of leisure. And leisure was only available to the wealthy, and the wealthy got wealthy because of the farms, mines, mills and granaries run by slave labor. Were things better in the Middle Ages? I dunno. Depends on whether you were a lord or a serf (and I include among the lords the Princes of the Church--bishops, abbots and the like, all of whom got their time for religious reflection from the rents of their tenants and the backbreaking labor of their serfs).

>>> "Hey, your families are falling apart, ennui is rampant, people are feeling rootless and disconnected, young people are mutilating themselves to get attention or out of sheer boredom, and pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry, but hey, look at all the nice stuff you have!"<<<

And how many times throughout history have we heard that one, Savanarola?

Everybody here laments the decline of Western civilization and places the blame on the industrial economy. Yet I bet there isn't one among you who would want to live in a pre-industrial society, and fewer still who would last a month in one.

[Rob G]

"And how many times throughout history have we heard that one, Savanarola?"

Doesn't make it any less true, does it, H.G.?

"Everybody here laments the decline of Western civilization and places the blame on the industrial economy."

Uh, no, not really. It's the commercialist mentality that resulted from the industrial revolution that's the problem, not industry itself.

[NTBH]

Kamilla,

I think that your comment sums up quite a bit about life. I had two friends in college who were actually pretty good folk musicians (there are only two kinds, absolutely horrid and really good)and one of their songs had this as a chorus

I feel stretched
And I feel like lasting forever right now
So I'll hold to that
For tomorrow, I will want to die

Jason Harrod and Brian Funck

IMHO, the beauty that we see in the good times, pales to the beauty we see while in agony.

I pray that we may be able to continue to see the beauty in both.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

Hey Judy,
You wouldn't want to live in the world of the paramecium. It's chock-full of fierce predators. But there is an elegance along with the terrible efficiency of the organism.

Tony's exhortation is a good one, and while Stuart is certainly right about the material conditions that obtained earlier (and probably right about the spiritual ones), I don't think Tony was positing a mythological Golden Age. Just because our time doesn't have people dying from cholera by the tens of thousands doesn't mean we still aren't in a bad way, spiritually speaking. The Devil wants us to sleep and is using all the resources we've given him to entrance us. The Blessed Trinity wants us to wake up and pay attention to the lives we are leading, the eternally important decisions we're making, and so not to substitute our own mess of pottage for the glorious inheritance He's provided for us.

The leisure we've been given by our technological advances shouldn't be squandered in entertaining ourselves to damnation. The more prophets of that message we have, the better.

[DGP]

>>Everybody here laments the decline of Western civilization and places the blame on the industrial economy.

I don't blame industry per se, though of course it had a role in destabilizing parenting patterns. Far more important is the invention of the television -- only a small part of the "industrial economy," but wreaking disproportionate devastation. With respect to some technologies, being a Luddite is a virtue.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> Far more important is the invention of the television -- only a small part of the "industrial economy," but wreaking disproportionate devastation.<<<

Cock-fighting, bear-baiting, bare-knuckles boxing, and of course, gladiatorial combat were so much more ennobling than television, to be sure. The Church Fathers denounced just about all of those pleasures with the same vehemence that television is denounced today--and with the same degree of effectiveness.

While we are on that subject, how many of you follow the ancient Church canons prohibiting Christians from frequenting the theater, to say nothing of being actors and actresses, under pain of excommunication?

[W.E.D. Godbold]

I must confess to, at one point in my life, being a chronic urchin in musical theater. During a three year period I appeared in "The King and I", "Tom Sawyer", and "Oliver!" (two runs)

But, seriously, how many people really watched bear baiting? Now 60% of men say that they've watched pornography on the internet in the last week.

[DGP]

>>Cock-fighting, bear-baiting, bare-knuckles boxing, and of course, gladiatorial combat were so much more ennobling than television, to be sure.

Don't be stupid *and* sarcastic at the same time. It doesn't work. If you must have an answer: They are not ennobling, but I dare say they're less ignoble than television. Among other things, they bring men into contact with each other, they may require some community organization, and boxing and combat require the development of a variety of virtues and skills.

Television, too, is not completely evil -- there is art in it, and genuine entertainment. But it's intoxicating, addictive, and *progressively* alienates consumers from far superior entertainments such as reading, talking, music. The only fair comparison is to recreational drug use.

>>The Church Fathers denounced just about all of those pleasures with the same vehemence that television is denounced today--and with the same degree of effectiveness.

Well, if it's a tradition, why not honor it? :-) But seriously, I'm not so much interested in "denouncing" as in calling attention to a fact: It was not the industrial economy per se, but television which has wrought whatever decline there is in Western civilization.

>>While we are on that subject, how many of you follow the ancient Church canons prohibiting Christians from frequenting the theater, to say nothing of being actors and actresses, under pain of excommunication?

There are quite a few theatergoers, actors, and actresses who deserve excommunication, so don't mock those who pronounced such things. Fortunately, most of us rarely get what we deserve.

[Rob G]

"Cock-fighting, bear-baiting, bare-knuckles boxing, and of course, gladiatorial combat were so much more ennobling than television, to be sure."

Some of the rot may indeed have been worse back in those days, but then it wasn't delivered to your home free of charge. Television mainstreams the rubbish that's already present in the culture and makes it universally accessible.

[Kamilla]

"Television mainstreams the rubbish that's already present in the culture and makes it universally accessible."

And seemingly universally "normal" as well.

Kamilla

P.S. Thanks, Beth! I couldn't remember where the phrase came from - I haven't read it, but must have run across a fragment of it somewhere along the way.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Doesn't make it any less true, does it, H.G.?<<<

Of course it is true, but it is ALWAYS true, everywhere and at all times, because that is the nature of post-lapsian man. The question is whether you can bring about some sort of global metanoia by blanket denunciations of a material culture. History says, probably not. I might take all this sackcloth and ashes seriously if there was perhaps a little more emphasis on ascesis on the micro level. How many of my Protestant brethren have even tried fasting? The Fathers said that the passions of the flesh were the most common, but at the same time the least dangerous and the hardest to master. Yet until the flesh is mastered, how can one master the intellect and the spirit? Self-denial in little things disciplines the body and the soul and prepares both to meet the challenges of deeper passions.

Of course this is not a call for cosmic change, does not ask people to alter their lives drastically at one moment, but it is the beginning. For one who has mastered the passions, material possessions do not present a stumbling block, since they have no hold on him. And because they have no hold on him, they need not be rejected, but can be accepted for what they are, no more or less.

I'd feel a lot more comfortable with this Bonfire of the Vanities talk if I saw people making serious efforts on a personal level--which, by the way, doesn't mean flashy, ostentatious gestures like going vegan or eating only locally-grown organic produce or drinking fair trade coffee.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Some of the rot may indeed have been worse back in those days, but then it wasn't delivered to your home free of charge. Television mainstreams the rubbish that's already present in the culture and makes it universally accessible.<<<

It was right outside your door, down in the town square. And it wasn't "some" rot--it was the same endemic rot that you see today, different guise but just as prevalent. The degree of casual brutality in the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, even the early Victorian period, would stand your hair on end. It's not at all clear that sexual mores were any better in the past than they are in the present--try comparing the number of Prostitutes in London or Paris today with the number in 1600, 1700 or 1800. And it was all universally accessible. The only thing that is significantly different today is the acceptance by the cultural elite of a specific set of vices as either normal or even virtuous (though others once considered trivial, like smoking or drinking, are considered beyond the pale). Of course, at no time in history have the elite been more disconnected from the masses. Contrary to what you may think, most people aren't paying much attention to the mental maunderings of Maureen Dowd, nor do they take Paris Hilton as their role models. Most people today, as in the past, lead quiet, sober lives. You're just more aware of the depravity because it is magnified through the prism of the mass media. But the overall level is just about the same as always.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I'm not so much interested in "denouncing" as in calling attention to a fact: It was not the industrial economy per se, but television which has wrought whatever decline there is in Western civilization.<<<

I would have said the automobile, myself--since the moral decline of the West began long before television--or even radio (so we can't blame Little Orphan Annie or the Green Hornet). The automobile provided people with an unparalleled degree of physical mobility, which in turn allowed them to break the bonds that had held families in the same communities for generations. That same mobility also provided men and women with a higher degree of unsupervised privacy than ever before--which they put to good use in the rumble seat. Of course, that the mass acceptance of the automobile occurred just after World War I certainly helped matters--cataclysmic wars always have a deleterious effect on public morality (true of World War II as well as the Great War--and even the Civil War). The car gave birth to that great American institution, the motel, a lodging which allowed people to come and go at will, unmarked by a doorman or concierge.

>>>There are quite a few theatergoers, actors, and actresses who deserve excommunication, so don't mock those who pronounced such things. Fortunately, most of us rarely get what we deserve.<<<

True enough. But I draw the line at avoiding Jewish dentists. Imagine the state of our teeth if we did.

[DGP]

>>I would have said the automobile, myself

The automobile plays its role, like many other things (telephones, air travel, internet). But there's nothing quite like television to make a man shut out his own family, ignore his work, neglect his betterment, go into a trance, learn nothing, think he's learned something, and crave the experience again and again, many hours each week.

Well, maybe there are other things like that (drugs, porn, other addictions) but most people still recognize them as toxic, and so enjoy a measure of spiritual protection.

[Clifford Simon]

>>Well, maybe there are other things like that (drugs, porn, other addictions)<<

The difference between television and porn is not that much. They are at least mutually symbiotic.

- - -

In response to the claim that man needs leisure to be spiritual, I think that confuses the spiritual with a peculiar manifestation of it. David was spiritual while breaking his back for the family's sheep.

[Rob G]

"Of course it is true, but it is ALWAYS true, everywhere and at all times, because that is the nature of post-lapsian man. The question is whether you can bring about some sort of global metanoia by blanket denunciations of a material culture."

It is always and everywhere true, but not always and everywhere in the same measure and to the same degree. No one is expecting 'top down' efforts to produce global metanoia. But this doesn't mean that efforts to stem the tide, and perhaps even reverse it a bit, aren't valid. Your attitude seems to be, "Hey, it's always like this, so what the hell?"

"I might take all this sackcloth and ashes seriously if there was perhaps a little more emphasis on ascesis on the micro level."

And I'd argue that it's industrialism/commercialism, with their emphasis on acquiring 'stuff' that have helped kill off any ascetic bent we once may have had. Ever heard of conspicuous consumption? How about the fact that many people nowadays are, like babies, unable to recognize the difference between a want and a need? How about the fact that any sense of delayed gratification has been advertised out of most of us? Come on, Stuart. Wake up and smell the free-trade organic coffee.

"Contrary to what you may think, most people aren't paying much attention to the mental maunderings of Maureen Dowd, nor do they take Paris Hilton as their role models."

Don't get out much do you. Been to a mall lately?

"You're just more aware of the depravity because it is magnified through the prism of the mass media. But the overall level is just about the same as always."

Of course the mass media magnifies it. But in the process it makes it worse.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Don't get out much do you. Been to a mall lately?<<<

With two teenage daughters? You're kidding, right?

What I find interesting is how little people pay attention to all the glitzy ads and come-ons. Like the Herms on Roman statues, they're part of the background, and go unnoticed.

You want a guide to the underlying health of the culture? Most of the top grossing movies of the last decade were rated G or PG. G and PG movies are far more profitable than those rated R, yet more R-rated movies get made, proving that Hollywood is not totally dedicated to the bottom line--mostly what it wants (aside from scads of money) is "intellectual respectability"--"Hey! We're artists here!" So they make movies to impress other people who make movies, even if those movies don't make money. That's because ordinary people won't see those movies. if things were as bad as you insist, they would.

In this, the motion picture industry is going the way of "serious" music, theater and art; i.e., the elites are pandering to each other, in ever more esoteric fashion, cutting out the ordinary person. As a result, all that "serious" stuff is essentially irrelevant; it does not shape or influence culture in any real way. On the other hand, the most creative work is being done in the despised "commercial realm", for the very simple reason that commercial art must connect with the audience or it defeats its purpose--and nobody is going to pay an ineffective commercial artist. On the other hand, "serious" artists either get paid by grants or are on the faculty of major educational institutions. In either case, they are not held accountable for the quality of their work.

[Steve Nicoloso]

You're just more aware of the depravity because it is magnified through the prism of the mass media. But the overall level is just about the same as always.

Really? 60% of males looked at porn... in the last week... in 1887? Maybe 60% of males would have wanted to look at porn, if 60% of males even knew such a thing existed, in the last week, in 1887? But to actually look? Really? And by the way, the proliferation of porn has made made porn... well... far more porny. So much so that stuff like Playboy is now considered "soft" (laughably so, apparently, in some in some circles). On the plus side, rape stats do appear to be down. But I doubt the internet's number one industry is really keeping any souls out of hell.

You know, Stuart, for someone who can spin nuance so finely, indeed, upon occasion too finely, on subjects that shall not be named, you are surprisingly dull on this question of modernity: If we criticize large-scale industrial agricultural practices, then we must want to bring back the bubonic plague, the Inquisition, and 13th century dental hygeine. To state what should be obvious: it isn't an either/or question. Intelligent 20th century observers have pointed out the tendancy of technology to change those who use it in ways not often foreseen and not always salutary. Are we really to believe that Huxley, Postman, Orwell, Chesterton, and Tolkien were just full of crap? That their manifold critiques of modernity amounted really to mindless nostalgia for a golden age that never existed? Are the Amish just miserable, python-esque medieval dirt farmers?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Really? 60% of males looked at porn... in the last week... in 1887?<<<

I haven't seen any numbers, and I don't know how one could collect them, but the fact is Victorian pornography was extensive, graphic and readily available. There may not have been an internet, but Victorian London, Paris and New York had thriving prostitution industries, several times larger than today. And the venereal disease rate was also pretty high by our standards. And the Victorians represented a moral regeneration over the previous century!

>>>If we criticize large-scale industrial agricultural practices, then we must want to bring back the bubonic plague, the Inquisition, and 13th century dental hygeine. <<<

I wouldn't go that far, but I will say that most people are not aware of how totally dependent they are on those same industrial practices--even (or especially_ those who criticize them. It's ubiquitous, like oxygen--you can see it, but if it goes away, you'll notice in a hurry.

>>. Intelligent 20th century observers have pointed out the tendancy of technology to change those who use it in ways not often foreseen and not always salutary. <<<

So did intelligent observers in the 19th, 18th and 17th centuries--to say nothing of the 10th and 11th centuries, or even the first and second centuries (either side of Christ). Technology always changes those who use it, and sometimes in not very good ways. On the other hand, the alternative is stasis, which is not going to happen--and if it did, the results would be catastrophic.

>>>Are we really to believe that Huxley, Postman, Orwell, Chesterton, and Tolkien were just full of crap?<<<

Of course not--though sometimes they took their mania to excess. But most of them were wise enough to realize that they could not put the toothpaste back in the tube--even Tolkien, who thought the Norman Conquest was the beginning of the end of civilization.

>>.Are we really to believe that Huxley, Postman, Orwell, Chesterton, and Tolkien were just full of crap?<<<

Of course, even the Amish don't turn their noses up at technology when it suits their purposes. For instance, an increasing number are even on the electrical grid, because they need power to run the respirators and other medical equipment they use because of the prevalence of genetic disorders caused by their own endogamy. They have long had things like refrigerators, too--running on natural gas.

But all of those things encompass an industrial society and its technology. They cannot escape it, neither can we. You can pick and choose what you want to use, but your wants and desires are not the sum of humanity's. Others want different things, and will act upon those needs. Even if people only used the technologies they absolutely required, you'd end up with roughly the same technology base as today, because the aggregate needs of humanity are so diverse.

Finally, everybody needs to recognize that man is a creative being in the model of his own creator. You can't stop his ability and desire to invent new things, and would be foolish to try. Better to stick to a few very hard and fast rules than to try to micro-organize a whole society. We've been there, and it wasn't pretty. Besides, what if people who disagree with your values take over at some point, hmmm?

Indulge yourself by exploiting our decadent industrial society. Go buy or rent James Burke's "Connections" on DVD, and find out why you can't really harness the technology genie.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Really? 60% of males looked at porn... in the last week... in 1887?<<<

I haven't seen any numbers, and I don't know how one could collect them, but the fact is Victorian pornography was extensive, graphic and readily available. There may not have been an internet, but Victorian London, Paris and New York had thriving prostitution industries, several times larger than today. And the venereal disease rate was also pretty high by our standards. And the Victorians represented a moral regeneration over the previous century!

>>>If we criticize large-scale industrial agricultural practices, then we must want to bring back the bubonic plague, the Inquisition, and 13th century dental hygeine. <<<

I wouldn't go that far, but I will say that most people are not aware of how totally dependent they are on those same industrial practices--even (or especially_ those who criticize them. It's ubiquitous, like oxygen--you can see it, but if it goes away, you'll notice in a hurry.

>>. Intelligent 20th century observers have pointed out the tendancy of technology to change those who use it in ways not often foreseen and not always salutary. <<<

So did intelligent observers in the 19th, 18th and 17th centuries--to say nothing of the 10th and 11th centuries, or even the first and second centuries (either side of Christ). Technology always changes those who use it, and sometimes in not very good ways. On the other hand, the alternative is stasis, which is not going to happen--and if it did, the results would be catastrophic.

>>>Are we really to believe that Huxley, Postman, Orwell, Chesterton, and Tolkien were just full of crap?<<<

Of course not--though sometimes they took their mania to excess. But most of them were wise enough to realize that they could not put the toothpaste back in the tube--even Tolkien, who thought the Norman Conquest was the beginning of the end of civilization.

>>.Are we really to believe that Huxley, Postman, Orwell, Chesterton, and Tolkien were just full of crap?<<<

Of course, even the Amish don't turn their noses up at technology when it suits their purposes. For instance, an increasing number are even on the electrical grid, because they need power to run the respirators and other medical equipment they use because of the prevalence of genetic disorders caused by their own endogamy. They have long had things like refrigerators, too--running on natural gas.

But all of those things encompass an industrial society and its technology. They cannot escape it, neither can we. You can pick and choose what you want to use, but your wants and desires are not the sum of humanity's. Others want different things, and will act upon those needs. Even if people only used the technologies they absolutely required, you'd end up with roughly the same technology base as today, because the aggregate needs of humanity are so diverse.

Finally, everybody needs to recognize that man is a creative being in the model of his own creator. You can't stop his ability and desire to invent new things, and would be foolish to try. Better to stick to a few very hard and fast rules than to try to micro-organize a whole society. We've been there, and it wasn't pretty. Besides, what if people who disagree with your values take over at some point, hmmm?

Indulge yourself by exploiting our decadent industrial society. Go buy or rent James Burke's "Connections" on DVD, and find out why you can't really harness the technology genie.

[Clifford Simon]

I can tell you first-hand that Japan has more porn and more brothels than we do. Brothels are visible on every urban street-corner, with neon signs. They are called "love hotels." In every small market, the skin mags are stacked higher than in supermarkets here. When I stayed in a (legit) hotel, they had to leave a full-page, plastic-coated glossy on my room's desk to let me know about the adult channel. Because it was plastic-coated, I couldn't tear it and trash it. I wanted to take it down to the front desk and say, "I'm offended by this - please don't leave such things in my room." (Would have done it if I could speak Japanese.) In American hotels it's just a sentence or two in the back page of the channel-guide. Japan is no more industrial than we are. There is a difference. We can (and do begin to) reign in these things, if we want to.

[Clifford Simon]

Sorry, can't leave without mentioning this.

In researching wedding dresses, I discovered this amusing contradiction.

Unless you ask for something very special, the typical gown combines the following two elements.

* The train ... as you know from Isaiah's vision, the train is the part of the robe that sweeps along behind. The the typical train is retailed as "Chapel Length," the longer version is retailed as "Cathedral Length." No mistaking the intention of the words here. If you look, you can get a "Destination Wedding" version that don't get wet and sandy on the beach... but the typical thing they push on you from their catalogs has always got a real, spectacular train. The train drives up the cost of the dress because of the extra yards of costly fabric. You're talking a $2000 dress, versus a similar "Destination" dress for $800 or $500.

* On the opposite end, you can search your eyes out for anything that's neither strapless nor halter-top. There's nothing in the wedding industry that a conservative dad would let his daughter go out wearing, since you just can't find anything that covers like an ordinary blouse (oh, but it's in white symbolizing purity ... yet what's more, "accent colors" are popular now). Well, you can but it's stamped "Modest," i.e. that small corner over there for Mormons and rednecks.

Put two and two together, and you see the values at work here. Clothe the ground not the bride.

Says one advice website, trains are no different than gigantic dry-mops. After walking up and down the church aisle once in it, even if it has been well-vacuumed, you can turn over your train and expect it to be filthy grey. So much for white purity, say I.

The point: That's the needless extent to which the retail culture has gone porno.

[labrialumn]

Lots of heat. How about some light?

Principles?

Actual evaluations of specific things?

[Kamilla]

Here's some principles for Labrialumn and Clifford - cleanhotels dot com. They list hotels and chains which do not provide porn for in-room viewing.

I no longer stay in hotels which profit from the sale of pornography. If I'm attending a conference where the conference hotel does so - I find someplace nearby that does not or I don't go. Especially if it is a church-related conference!

Kamilla

[Rob G]

"Technology always changes those who use it, and sometimes in not very good ways. On the other hand, the alternative is stasis, which is not going to happen--and if it did, the results would be catastrophic."

False dichotomy #1 -- we must move at top speed or not at all?

"Better to stick to a few very hard and fast rules than to try to micro-organize a whole society."

False dichotomy #2 -- there's no tertium quid between 'a few hard and fast rules' and micromanagement?

"Others want different things, and will act upon those needs."

Wants do not equate to needs except in infants and the infantile, the latter of which our culture seems to be producing in droves.

"Are we really to believe that Huxley, Postman, Orwell, Chesterton, and Tolkien were just full of crap?"

Not to mention Whitaker Chambers and Solzhenitsyn...

"most of them were wise enough to realize that they could not put the toothpaste back in the tube"

Yes, but certainly you can attempt to keep it from gushing forth at an ever-increasing velocity and volume.

"you can't really harness the technology genie."

Again, it isn't the technology genie, but his cousin the demon of commercialism who's the main problem.

[Steve Nicoloso]

Rob, you are a voice of sanity.

L'abrialumn, principles? A society in which consumption (rather than production, and thereby at ever greater levels of debt... erm... I mean "leverage") is the principal driver of economic "growth" is A) unlikely to be sustainable; and B) inherently militates against the self-discipline required by Christian faith.

Of course, even the Amish don't turn their noses up at technology when it suits their purposes.

But, Stuart, that was a large part of my point. The Amish don't have some grand ideology that fixes the holiest moment of technological development at 1880 or whatever. Their use of technology is merely prudent, and not (as you appear to imply) hypocritical. But all that said, they are not poor dirt farmers. Their lifestyle cultivates a variety of virtues, not least hard work and thrift, by which, all things being equal, tend to make them quite rich.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

Just to echo Steve's point--the Amish selectively use technology after they have made a reflective judgement regarding how it will affect the simplicity and plainness of their lifestyle.

Simplicity and plainness both have theological implications for the Amish, of course.

Note that I'm not endorsing the Amish lifestyle (and their theology can be downright strange), but I do laud this aspect of their culture. They also gave Mr. Yankovic the foundation for a truly inspired song (As I walk through the valley where I harvest my grain, I take a look at my wife and realize, "She's very plain.")

[Joe Long]

"Don't be stupid *and* sarcastic at the same time. It doesn't work."

Does TOO, Stuart!! Don't you watch TV at all? It makes people rich and widely admired; indeed it passes for erudition, in a literature department or legislative body near you.

And the bloodsports that preceded television may flourish again, on or off pay-per-view; old abuses and new are rarely mutually exclusive...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>But all that said, they are not poor dirt farmers. Their lifestyle cultivates a variety of virtues, not least hard work and thrift, by which, all things being equal, tend to make them quite rich.<<<

But only within the context of the greater techno-industrial culture around them. If you look at the Amish in Eastern Europe (that's the other place they went), where they are very much on the same technological level as their non-Amish neighbors, they aren't rich at all, but rather share in the poverty of the region. It's the wealth generated by the American economy that puts cash in the hands of American consumers who can then buy hand-made Amish products at a premium price, making the Amish rich. In America, their relationship with the general culture is symbiotic. In Europe, there is no general culture rich enough to demand top ruble for their products.

By the way, the Amish turn out to be a good source of non-mechanized farm equipment, which members of the Ukrainian and Ruthenian communities here in the U.S. buy and ship over to Ukraine, where horses are plentiful and cheap, while self-propelled tractors are rare and expensive.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>False dichotomy #1 -- we must move at top speed or not at all?<<<

Who decides on the speed limit? You? Me? What if it's someone with whom you disagree?

>>>False dichotomy #2 -- there's no tertium quid between 'a few hard and fast rules' and micromanagement?<<<

History shows that there really isn't. You yourself admit that in many other areas, such as the state's intrusion into family life. Don't like the state telling you how to raise your kids? Why should you expect the state to be better about telling you how to use (or not use) new technology?

>>>Wants do not equate to needs except in infants and the infantile, the latter of which our culture seems to be producing in droves.<<<

But again, who are you to determine what people "need"? And if you are concerned about people "wanting" things that are not good for them, work on the demand, not the supply side.

>>>"Are we really to believe that Huxley, Postman, Orwell, Chesterton, and Tolkien were just full of crap?"

Not to mention Whitaker Chambers and Solzhenitsyn...<<<

Utopians and dystopians alike are not the people you want in charge of a society. They are, at the end of the day, idealists and ideologues who tend to deal with abstractions and absolutes. People are neither, and don't like to be treated as such.

>>.Again, it isn't the technology genie, but his cousin the demon of commercialism who's the main problem.<<<

Define "commercialism", as something more than "people blowing their money on things of which I disapprove".

[Joe Long]

"Define 'commercialism', as something more than 'people blowing their money on things of which I disapprove'."

Actually, I'd rather have a word that means just that, because that (not capitalism) is closer to what bothers me. C.S. Lewis' "Christmas and X-Mas" rant is annual holiday reading at my house; in it, he criticises artifically-generated demand - obligatory gifts being a prime example. He singles out the "novelties", which are novelties because they're things no one would ever buy for himself...

The Amish have a symbiotic relationship with American capitalism; well, good on them - in that sense, perhaps they're good role models. Recognize and use the benefits of material prosperity, and avoid (as much as possible) the social pressures the prosperous consumer society generates. If the Amish err by emphasizing the latter, at least it's a less common error...

And frankly, everyone would be FAR better off if they'd quit blowing their money on things of which I disapprove. I'd probably settle, in fact, for defunding things Stuart disapproved, or Steve, or W.E.D. (among others, but those were closest in the discussion).

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>He singles out the "novelties", which are novelties because they're things no one would ever buy for himself...<<<

One of Lewis' sillier notions, since this is not a product of "artificial" demand but of human nature. Cro-Magnon burials show man had a penchant for "novelties" from the very beginning.

>>.The Amish have a symbiotic relationship with American capitalism; well, good on them - in that sense, perhaps they're good role models.<<<

Deprived of a host, the symbiont dies.

>>>And frankly, everyone would be FAR better off if they'd quit blowing their money on things of which I disapprove.<<<

But what if "they" wanted you to stop blowing your money on stuff of which "they" disapproved? You know, frivolities like Touchstone Magazine and vile superstitions like the Church? You always have to worry, because some day "you" may not be "they". Better to not have any "they" at all, but to work--as Solshenitsyn wanted when not being seduced by dreams of pan-Slavic Sobornost'--at converting the world one human heart at a time.

[Rob G]

"Who decides on the speed limit? You? Me? What if it's someone with whom you disagree?"

This is what prudence and consensus-building are all about.

'And if you are concerned about people "wanting" things that are not good for them, work on the demand, not the supply side.'

It's not just about what's good or not good for atomized individuals, but also for the community as a whole. And I think that all of the above-mentioned writers/thinkers were more concerned about the demand side than the supply side. This doesn't mean, however, that no attention should be given to the latter whatsoever. It's not an either/or, but a both/and.

"Utopians and dystopians alike are not the people you want in charge of a society."

Who said anything about putting them in charge? All we're talking about is listening to what they say.

When I use the term 'commercialism' I'm using it as a sort of synonym for 'consumerism,' i.e., the idea that a progressively expanding consumption of goods, and its corresponding materialism, is beneficial to both individuals and the economy as a whole. It involves the reduction of all things to commodities, and sees man primarily as a consumer, 'homo economicus.'

[JTH]

I think reading the first four chapters of Ecclesiastes will put things into perspective.

Our technology gives more people more options to try the things "the Preacher" tried. It is still a vain chasing after the wind.

"For in much wisdom is much vexation,
and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow."

[W.E.D. Godbold]

Stuart,
You sometimes write as if you assumed we've got the best of all possible worlds economically and technologically. I think this is partly because you (rightly) resist the idea of having an outside force (that is, the government) trying to pick winners in technology or in business. (This, of course, does not work for reasons too varied to mention and many of our current economic problems came from incentives--a form of winner-picking--that were essentially provided by the government in the service of the vice of greed.) But there are other means besides the big, blunt hand of government that could serve to discourage vice: notably societal pressures exercised through voluntary associations such as churches and clubs.

A more virtuous society would be better both economically and technologically. The commercialism that Rob, Steve, Joe and I decry (and that you do, too, in your heart, you argumentative cuss) is not a form of economic advancement. In certain respects at particular times it might seem to foster other advances, but I'm convinced this is not as efficient as other, more prudent and just means would. To put it bluntly, a lot of our resources (both human and materiel) are wasted on crap that nobody needs but that generators of artificial "needs" gin up out of the air. (To my mind, professional ad personnel are going to have a tougher road to heaven than bishops do, and that's saying a lot! :-)

My point is, while this waste cannot be eliminated in this world, it can certainly be reduced and our technological, economic, and moral landscape would be improved thereby. This is what posts like Tony's are meant for--prophetic exhortations to work for a better world and not to be satisfied with the lukewarm dish we've got right now. Your pouring cold water on them doesn't always appear to be realism--it sometimes seems like a manifestation of the middle-age ailment of crankiness. And I say this with all due respect to you as one from whom I've learned a lot.

[Stuart Koehl]

OK, Gene puts the question well. Here are my responses:

1. I do not think this kind of "prophetic statement" is particularly helpful, first because it is merely the inverse of the modernist narrative of inexorable human progress. Neither view is correct, neither is helpful in discerning the right way for man to live.

2. Because it lacks any historical context, it ends up asserting that the depravity of the current era is unmatched throughout human history. This leads to two undesirable outcomes on the part of those who believe:

a) Acceptance of the irremediable nature of modern culture, withdrawal from that culture, and and the formation of insular "saved remnant" types of communities, which violate the great commission and indeed, hide their light under a bushel basket. This view says the world is not worthy of conversion or redemption. Might be true, but that's not the job we were given.

b) Frustration and despair, leading to a loss of faith and a surrender to the culture. Why fight what you can't beat, and which is so bad there has never been anything like it in human history.

3. in general, prophetic statements have a nasty habit of being converted into concrete policies which must, by their nature, be implemented coercively. Whether one is a modernist or a "traditionalist", the temptations of power are overwhelming, and frankly, I don't want to wear the Ring of Power. Since I am, you will all agree, the best person to wield such immense power, if I don't want it, who among you would dare take it on himself?

I don't pour cold water on such statements because I am a middle aged crank (I hardly think of myself that way), but because I seem to have a fundamentally more positive opinion of people than most of you do. Which is interesting, because my reputation is one of worldly cynic (of course, I am also incurably romantic, and romantic cynicism is a surefire recipe for chronic unhappiness). It may be that my long historical perspective allows me to see more of what is good around us. Because if there is nothing good here, why bother to try to improve it?

[Michael]

>>Since I am, you will all agree, the best person to wield such immense power, if I don't want it, who among you would dare take it on himself?<<

I will take the Ring.

To Mordor.

Which I guess puts me on Stuart's side. o.O Who knew!?

[Clifford Simon]

Kamilla, thanks for the link to cleanhotels. I may make use of that. Vote with your dollar...

[Stuart Koehl]

Having tooled around some of the seamier parts of Europe on a budget, I can tell you that the term 'clean hotel" implies something far more fundamental to me.

[Bobby Neal Winters]

>>You sometimes write as if you assumed we've got the best of all possible worlds economically and technologically.<<

The optimist believes we are in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true.

[Stuart Koehl]

I tend to hold those two beliefs in dynamic tension.

[labrialumn]

Stuart, and of course that is the Molinist theodicy. :-)

[labrialumn]

Kamilla,
Thank you. We hobbits don't tend to travel much. Though it might be fun to see what is over the horizon. . .

Steve, I agree. I wonder how we can -do- that, apart from imitating the social ghettoizing of the Old Order Mennonites.

I'd like to see this sort of discussion, which comes by on this site with some frequency, move from just venting to some practical ideas - which require principles, of course. But, it's like "I know you(pl) are mad, but what do you suggest *doing* about that?" I don't know why I'm in this mood, but it has lasted a bit.

To avoid commercialism, we need to put technology in its place, as tools. We need in our lives to put God and other people made in His Image in the central places of our off-the-clock-lives. How that may work out in different families may well be very different. apart from Biblical absolutes, can we pass judgment on how others do it? Would we not be better off to suggest ideas, and to live as examples? I think here of some of Mrs. Schaeffer's books and her daughter, Susan Schaeffer Macauley's _For the Family's Sake_. Things like that.

So, we have a lot of passion here. A lot of heat. Can we use it to produce something useful?

[Rob G]

My thoughts on Stuart's responses:

1) I do not believe that such 'prophetic responses' are merely the inverse of the myth of progress. They are rather a radical critique of them, which isn't the same thing.

2) I believe that there is at least one sense in which today's depravity is unmatched in human history: previous civilizations did not have the light of the Christian faith to guide their efforts. Our civilization has had that light, but has rejected it, and is in the process of extinguishing altogether any of its remaining candles. This is, in fact, the first ever post-Christian culture, and because of that I believe we can expect the depravity to be worse.

3) The 'saved remnant' communities in the early Church continued evangelizing when they withdrew from a decadent culture. There is no reason why contemporary ones cannot follow suit.

4) "With much power comes much responsibility," but does anyone who's thinking along the lines discussed here not already realize this? One must go into projects like this cognizant of the dangers of such power, being very careful of those chosen to wield it.

5) I do not believe that anyone here who is critical of modernity is arguing that there is nothing worth saving. On the contrary, it is because we see the remaining goods being attacked and eroded that we feel the need both to speak up and to take action.

[Steve Nicoloso]

Steve, I agree. I wonder how we can -do- that, apart from imitating the social ghettoizing of the Old Order Mennonites.

What's so bad about the "social ghettoizing" of Old Order Mennonites?

5) I do not believe that anyone here who is critical of modernity is arguing that there is nothing worth saving. On the contrary, it is because we see the remaining goods being attacked and eroded that we feel the need both to speak up and to take action.

What Rob said...

I tend to hold "everything going to hell in a handbasket" and "some things must be saved" in dynamic tension.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>1) I do not believe that such 'prophetic responses' are merely the inverse of the myth of progress. They are rather a radical critique of them, which isn't the same thing.<<<

If they were put into the proper form and used the right idioms, this would be correct. As it is, most of them take the form of mirror imaging (i.e., if modernists believe this is the best of all possible worlds, then say that this is the worst of all possible worlds; but since it's the only world we've got, both positions are spurious).

>>.2) I believe that there is at least one sense in which today's depravity is unmatched in human history: previous civilizations did not have the light of the Christian faith to guide their efforts. Our civilization has had that light, but has rejected it, and is in the process of extinguishing altogether any of its remaining candles. This is, in fact, the first ever post-Christian culture, and because of that I believe we can expect the depravity to be worse.<<<

I've repeatedly pointed out that "Christian" civilizations were just as bad (in their own way) as ours. For some reason, though, you choose to view the previous 2000 years of Christian history with very rose colored glasses.

>>>3) The 'saved remnant' communities in the early Church continued evangelizing when they withdrew from a decadent culture. There is no reason why contemporary ones cannot follow suit.<<<

I'd be very interested in hearing about these "saved remnants"--who were they, when did they flourish, and what happened to them? In the meanwhile, the "saved remnant" par excellence is the Old Order Amish, and it is hard to deny that they have entirely withdrawn from the world--to the extent that is possible--and take little interest in it one way or the other.

>>.4) "With much power comes much responsibility," but does anyone who's thinking along the lines discussed here not already realize this? One must go into projects like this cognizant of the dangers of such power, being very careful of those chosen to wield it.<<<

Bad answer. "Power corrupts and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely", which is why the focus of Christian revitalization of the culture has to avoid at all costs the temptation to dictate solutions, but rather needs to focus on the conversion of individual souls. Besides, it is next to impossible to say, a priori, whether any given technology is "good" or "bad", essential or superfluous. I've been trying to point out to you (with very limited success) that luxury and consumerism are the engines that drive innovation--and always have been. Put your neo-puritanical ethos into practice, and what you find is (a) it doesn't work, because people want--probably "need" luxury; and (b) without luxury you don't get the inventions that turn out to be "vital". Again, go watch Connections and get back to me.

>>>5) I do not believe that anyone here who is critical of modernity is arguing that there is nothing worth saving. On the contrary, it is because we see the remaining goods being attacked and eroded that we feel the need both to speak up and to take action.<<<

Well, you certainly sound like it and seem willing to ditch the baby with the bathwater. Maybe you need to tone down the Jeremiads a bit and think more about unintended consequences. Also, as a friend wrote to me about this discussion, a lot of you need to (a) study history more intensely; and (b) get out and meet some new people. The world is hardly as dark as you think it is. And, I might add, it was never as bright as you think it was.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>.What's so bad about the "social ghettoizing" of Old Order Mennonites?<<<

For one thing, it's fundamentally contrary to the Christ's command to be a light unto the nations, and to make disciples of all nations, baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The Old Order Amish do not socialize with outsiders and do not evangelize. Admirable as they are in many ways, they are so concerned with maintaining their own purity that they do not emulate Christ the Good Shepherd, who leaves the flock behind to find the one sheep who is lost.

In many ways, their way is too easy. You shut out the world, and you build a wall of practices and taboos to keep it out. Once you are in, staying in becomes fairly easy. On the other hand, we are called to do something much harder--being in the world while not being of the world. There is a lot more risk in that than in just pulling in the welcome mat and slamming the door on the world.

>>>I tend to hold "everything going to hell in a handbasket" and "some things must be saved" in dynamic tension.<<<

On the other hand, this is true at all times, in all places and among all peoples, so what makes you think today is any different than yesterday or tomorrow, until Christ should come again?

[Rob G]

"a lot of you need to (a) study history more intensely; and (b) get out and meet some new people. The world is hardly as dark as you think it is. And, I might add, it was never as bright as you think it was."

Well, if that isn't a discussion-ender I don't know what is. People who disagree with you A) don't know enough history, B) look at the past through rose-colored glasses and C) mistakenly believe that things are worse than they really are.

How does one argue against that without being automatically gainsaid at every turn? I feel like I've walked into Monty Python's 'Argument Room' sketch.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>.People who disagree with you A) don't know enough history, B) look at the past through rose-colored glasses and C) mistakenly believe that things are worse than they really are.<<<

Not everyone, but quite a few. And the observation wasn't mine, but came from someone who is both a highly respected Catholic scholar and sometime contributer to this forum.

[Rob G]

Yes, but you referenced it approvingly.

And of course it was "a highly respected Catholic scholar and sometime contributor to this forum" who got this discussion started in the first place, right? So that's a wash.

[Stuart Koehl]

I'd still like to know who are all these nasty, depressing people with whom Tony hangs, and why he doesn't get a new circle of friends.

[Clifford Simon]

>>>1) I do not believe that such 'prophetic responses' are merely the inverse of the myth of progress. They are rather a radical critique of them, which isn't the same thing.<<<

If they were put into the proper form and used the right idioms, this would be correct.

I'll be a good reader and save a criticizable throw with a generous catch.

The Zeitgeist: new zeit, same old geist.

[NTBH]

It seems that we have taken Niebuhr's five categories of relation between Christ and culture and have narrowed them down to two or possibly three.
It seems obvious to me that Stuart is correct in saying that simply fleeing the culture ignores the Great Commission.
I personally believe that Christ the transformer of culture is closest to the ideal, but that ultimately it is really about changing one person at a time. I do believe that the children are our future:) It seems to me that the battle is not won by coercion of non like minded individuals, but rather by encouraging people become Christian. (I wrote that in a way that everyone will relate to, I really want to say that they should join the Church, but that's a whole 'nother can 'o worms.)
Of course, this starts by the cleansing of my own nous.
"Acquire a peaceful spirit, and around you thousands will be saved." St Seraphim of Sarov
I know that I'm only suggesting the narrow, difficult path and we were never guaranteed that we will see anything except persecution. Ultimately there is only so much we can do, and the rest is the Lord's.

[Steve Nicoloso]

I've been trying to point out to you (with very limited success) that luxury and consumerism are the engines that drive innovation--and always have been.

Well, as anybody who has watched the original Connections series knows, it was most often warfare that drove innovation; but I suppose war itself is, more often than not, a type of consumerism, driven by a desire for luxury. But there is a just-so-ness to this line of argument, Stuart. Yes, many of the technological achievements that we today take for granted came about because of warfare, or to make a king and a few archdukes comfy, or to take from the land more than we possibly put back. But as with the biological, technological evolution only gets to happen once. It's anybody's guess whether the same innovations might have occurred through some other, perhaps less wicked, series of needs. And then, even if not, one still cannot do evil that good may come of it; which is to say: So What? So what if King Theobald failed to require a saddle doohickey to keep from falling off his horse, the doohickey being the key to building a supercollider 800 years later and unlocking the mysteries of dark energy. Sad to see the supercollider not get built, but it was still wrong for King Theobald to go to war with the Outer Slobovians just to steal their Salad Spinners.

[Stuart Koehl]

I find it interesting that the same people who are so insistent about the need for man to be fruitful and multiply turn up their noses at the kinds of agricultural technology that allow fruitful man to fill his belly without resort to cannibalism. The only way you can get away with that is by turning up your nose at medical technology that keeps man from dying like flies.

[Rob G]

"I find it interesting that the same people who are so insistent about the need for man to be fruitful and multiply turn up their noses at the kinds of agricultural technology that allow fruitful man to fill his belly without resort to cannibalism. The only way you can get away with that is by turning up your nose at medical technology that keeps man from dying like flies."

I'm dropping out of this thread because frankly, Stuart, I'm getting a little frustrated by your constant recourse to false dichotomies, and to these imaginary radical either/or's.

Your last post nails it, btw Steve. Even if greed and warfare drive technology, the fact that much good arises as a side product of that technology does not validate greed and warfare. I heard some clown on a conservative radio show yesterday talking about how greed was good because it drives the market. Well, guess what? Last time I checked greed is still a sin, and even if it does "drive the market" (which I don't believe), it's still a sin.

[labrialumn]

Following the Protestant Reformation, technological and scientific advances occurred much more rapidly, and for reasons other than warfare. It was no longer considered necessary to suffer in order to earn salvation (a peasant belief whether or not it was a correct understanding of magisterial teaching). It was now good to develop labor-saving devices.

There certainly was important technological advance prior to this time, but at a much slower pace.

Maybe I have the reasons wrong, but that seems to be what happened.

I would choose the Old Order way of life in a heartbeat if it was that or modern urban life offered to me.

But I probably would draw the lines differently than they do, as I suspect every one else here would as well. Modern medicine being an example, and of course the Great Commission.

And you really don't want to husk corn by hand. That was the one truly labor-intensive unpleasant job before the sheller and corn picker were invented (originally horse-powered.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> Last time I checked greed is still a sin, and even if it does "drive the market" (which I don't believe), it's still a sin.<<<

If he had said, "enlightened self-interest", would that have assuaged your damaged scruples?

>>>Even if greed and warfare drive technology, the fact that much good arises as a side product of that technology does not validate greed and warfare.<<<

Crunch time: Would you reject all modern technologies and inventions that have their origins in greed and warfare. Can you name half a dozen that don't owe their development to some extent to them, either as source or as motive?

[David Gray]

How many red herrings can you fit in a post?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>How many red herrings can you fit in a post?<<<

Almost as many as the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

Wait a second. It isn't warfare that drove innovation as much as the investment of capital (a necessary corollary to all warfare) that drove innovation. But war is a messy and inefficient way to deliver technology. The NIH research budget has produced far, far more innovation than 100 times that budget devoted to warfare (and it isn't actually directed toward innovation but rather discovery). You look at drug company research (nearly all applied, of course) nowadays and the vast majority is piggybacked on publicly funded discoveries.

[Note that I'm in favor of innovation by the DoD. There are lots of professionals who are employed full time to convert innovations discovered in (say) academia to things that the military might find useful. But, at least in my field of biotechnology, the military usually isn't the one coming up with the discoveries. They're essentially reacting to civilian advances so that nobody can get a jump on them. Actually, from what I know of other areas of defence contracting, this is how they work as well. And it's a darn good thing, too. The reverse case is when military "innovation" really does drive the civilian economy and we know what this looks like: Soviet Russia. How did that turn out? :-)]

Stuart, I think you're too quick in this debate to paint your perceived opponents into boxes that you've pre-designated in your mind. While these stereotypes might serve you well in other circumstances, I don't think Rob and Steve are coming from where you think they're coming from. The consequece is that, in your replies, you're painting with brush strokes that are far too broad. I wouldn't assume that they're saying more than they are actually saying. I (for one) am not anti-technology or anti-science or anti-financial markets because I disaprove of perversions in each of these areas. It stands to reason that the *more* I like and respect those institutions, the more I'd be upset with them when they screw up.

My $0.02.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

Crud, I just wrote a long post and lost it. I'm going to summarize.

1) I don't think vice (greed/enlightened self interest) has the creative power Stuart attributes to it.
2) It is easier to make money as (say) an investment banker than it is to put in the hours to actually develop something new and useful. Greed would tend to lead to a smart cookie choosing the former over the latter and so be an enemy of innovation.
3) Most famous scientists and engineers weren't developing stuff for the money. I've read more than a few science biographies. Einstein, Edison, Maxwell, Gibbs--these guys were pursuing discoveries and inventions out of wonder. Edison sacrificed lots of money to discover new stuff. Even Nobel (who made a killing off of dynamite) really seemed to like the chemistry of things that go boom (even though it ruined his health). Sure sometimes their egos (pride) were involved in their pursuit, but I don't perceive this as the primary driving force behind the discoveries. (A lot of smart people think making money is just plain boring. I bet you're one of them. Yeah, you might be able to make a lot of money doing something else, but what would be the point of it?)

[Stuart Koehl]

These days, innovation tends to flow from the private sector to DoD--from "practical" to "tactical"--reversing the title of the Discovery Channel show. That's because the present thrust in warfare is information technology driven--digitizing as much as possible, linking systems in secure networks, and so on. Beyond that, the emergence of a huge outdoor leisure industry has revolutionized soldier equipment, which is now lighter, warmer or cooler as required, more durable, more versatile. Soldiers got tired of lugging around World War II era crap and eating same out of a can, while looking at much better dear in the Eddie Bauer catalogue. DoD finally got the message and militarized the stuff.

Scientists are driven by a sense of wonder--but if, like Nobel, they can make a buck, that's cool too. One has to wonder, though, whether big science and its reliance on government funding hasn't replaced that motive with the desire to keep the lights on in the lab by going for the sure shot that will win another grant. I don't think Edison really belongs on that list, though. A more hard-headed businessman never lived--and the way he treated his partners and collaborators leaves a lot to be desired from the ethical standpoint, as does the way he dealt with competitors such as Westinghouse. He also had trouble recognizing when he was barking up the wrong tree, as with his wrong-headed belief in the superiority of direct current.

Engineers, on the other hand, have many tribes. Some certainly do work from that, "Gee, I wonder if I can make this work", but then there are the more pragmatic ones (like production engineers) who work more from the "Can I build this thing in an economical way?" You need both types, and a good program manager knows how to keep them in balance. Too many of the first type, and the design never gets frozen because the engineers keep tinkering--a classic case of perfect as enemy of the good. Too much of the latter, and you get cheap stuff that doesn't perform.

A guy I know who's run several successful technology companies says it's important to keep you R&D lab and your production departments separate. Put your dreamers in R&D, give them a budget, and let them loose. Every so often, go into the lab on the weekend and steal all their toys, giving them to the production engineers to turn into usable products. On Monday, the R&D guys come back and whine a lot about how the idea wasn't mature enough, but you give them a new set of toys and a new budget, and they get happy again. This process can be repeated ad infinitum.

Making money was never my highest priority--but I'm not going to dump on those for whom it is, unless their actions in pursuit of their passion turn them into bad human beings. I know a lot of entrepreneurs and even financiers who have a real gift for creating wealth, and they enjoy what they do--you can tell by how they talk about it--who are decent, honorable, Christian human beings. I also know a lot of "working class heroes" who are scumbuckets. Wealth doesn't define character. It it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom, it's probably just as hard if not harder for a plumber, a car mechanic or an electrician.

[Stuart Koehl]

One more thing--"modernity" is a slippery term in any case. Everybody always thinks he is living in the modern age. People in the classical age didn't sit around thinking, "how lucky of us to be living in the classical age--I'm glad I'm going to miss the Dark Ages". And those living in the Dark Ages did not consider it all that dark--they were getting excited about stuff like "the new learning"--they were modernists, in their own way. People in the Middle Ages did not sit around waiting for the Renaissance--they thought they were on the cutting edge.

In other words, "modernity" is where you are at any given moment, so if modernity is a problem, it's a transcendent one, present in all ages, in all places. Which puts us back to where I began. This age is no better or worse than past ages. It will be seen as no better or worse than future ages. I stand by my aphorism: The world is going to hell, but then, the world is always going to hell; that's why it's the world.

[Benighted Savage]

Stuart Koehl writes:

>>>One more thing--"modernity" is a slippery term in any case.<<<

I always thought that the primary use of the term "modernity" -- as opposed to the Modern Age or Era, or Modernism -- was as a shibboleth. Its presence identified members of the Po-Mo tribe. I find its presence on this blog a little upsetting.

I've been outside the university for over ten years. I can imagine that "modernity" has become academic parlance, but it surprises me to find that it is being used with such gusto by Christians ("mere" or otherwise).

Perhaps it is the case that "modernity" has been adopted by individuals who are concerned with Technology and The Environment. I've read that some Conservatives who share these concerns identify themselves as Crunchy-Cons. Is there such a thing as a Crunchy-Christian? (here I'm *not* referring to unlucky South Seas missionaries)

[Judy K. Warner]

"Modernity" is a favorite word of Ken Myers of Mars Hill Audio, who is hardly a member of the Po-Mo tribe.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

Stuart,
I see where you're coming from, but I think I've got a theological reason to doubt you. While the Holy Spirit was moving as He listed before the apostolic age, Christians afterwards had the *guarantee* of His indwelling presence through baptism (as a downpayment on our Resurrection bodies). You can't tell me that this doesn't make a difference. It also stands to reason that the more (baptized) Christians there are (both totally and as a percentage of the population), the better off things are going to be because it widens and deepens the potential influence of the Spirit. This doesn't mean that people consistently avail themselves of His gifts (I know I haven't). But because God is faithful, they're still gifted whether they use them or not. Obviously, this treasure is held in jars of clay and we have the same weaknesses of the flesh that are endemic to all of fallen humanity, but because He lives in us we are capable of things generations previous to Jesus Christ were not.

Even though Rodney Stark isn't a Christian, this is something like the picture he paints from (merely) looking at history.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

Stuart,
While I completely agree with you that the World is going to Hell and always has been, perhaps I'm trying to say that there's less World than there used to be and more Kingdom of God.

(Note that this isn't to say that the Kingdom of God can be fully realized short of the return of the King, but more elements can be present that there used to be.)

This is a speculative point, but I think that even *after* Jesus returns, there will be work (LOTS of it) of real value that we'll still be doing. So the Kingdom of God will be (in one sense) fully realized and yet still capable of some degree of improvement. Likewise, *we* will be approaching (asymptotically) the fullness of the realization of the Divine in us. This is part of the joy that comes when finite creatures are taken up into an infinite God. You have the wonder of infinite improvement. Part of the lethargy that seems to infect modern man when he contemplates most depictions of life after life after death is that it seems *stagnant* when, in fact, it will be anything but.

[Benighted Savage]

Judy K. Warner writes:

>>>"Modernity" is a favorite word of Ken Myers of Mars Hill Audio, who is hardly a member of the Po-Mo tribe.<<<

Thanks for the source.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

I went back and re-read Tony's post. He certainly wasn't positing a mythological age of "real" Christianity where everything was wonderful. I suspect if he'd been living then, he'd have written a similar complaint against the littleness of *that* age. I was listening to Peter Robinson interview archbishop Chaput on Uncommon knowledge. The ABp noted that blessed Augustine said hope had two daughters: anger and courage. If we hope for something better, then we see how it contrasts with the present time and can wish to change it. Anger and courage give us the emotional resources to go up against "the way things are" (and shouldn't be). What Tony is doing of course, is showing that things can be better. (He isn't saying that things could be worse, though, of course, they could be.)

People have brought up the "ghetoization" of Christianity and the inclination of some to retreat from the world. I think there are two places from which we are called to keep out evil, sinful, and corrupt things--
1) our own hearts
2) our households in which we have minor children

Ghettoization would mean locking ourselves down from all (or most) outside interactions. While that's not right, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't *reject* a lot of outside interactions after due consideration of their probable (negative) effects.

People (both relatives and friends) have sometimes criticized (mostly genially) our decision to homeschool our children because we're "sheltering" them from the "real world". And I say, yes we are. No one who wants to win a war sends soldiers onto the battlefield with 3rd rate (or no) equipment. I'd like my children to have space to deal with the ordinary sorts of sins and desires of the flesh with coaching from their loving parents and tutelage from the Word of God before they get exposed to the worst that Madison Avenuea and the pornography industry can come up with (not to mention the Devil). I'd like a chance for rejection of that stuff to become a habit in their psyches before they see it raw and unfiltered. I'd like to give their minds some exposure to the best that has been thought and a real survey of history (and not the diluted, ad hoc, and falsely-contextualized nonsense they call "history" in most schools). I'd like them to look up to their parents, clergy, and other beneficient adults and not be tempted to see their calling as dwelling forever in a herd of peer-group interactions.

Once they're equipped, of course, I'll unleash them on the World. (My oldest is turning 16 next week and he's darn close to being ready to go.)

[Steve Nicoloso]

Crunch time: Would you reject all modern technologies and inventions that have their origins in greed and warfare.

Of course not. But the question is a non-starter: it tells us nothing about what to do, about how we should live. One can enjoy a handy-dandy labor-saving device, whilst simultaneously decrying the War for Salad Spinners for which it was originally invented. In fact, one can still enjoy the device, whilst simultaneously working to end all Wars for Salad Spinners. Whether the handy-dandy labor-saving device might never otherwise have gotten invented is above our pay grade. Even if it could be shown (which I doubt, btw) that no such devices would ever have been invented without unjust wars or greedy archdukes, or more to the point even if the Cure for Cancer™ might never have been discovered without them, that still doesn't justify unjust wars or the evil actions of archdukes.

[Steve Nicoloso]

I heard some clown on a conservative radio show yesterday talking about how greed was good because it drives the market. Well, guess what? Last time I checked greed is still a sin, and even if it does "drive the market" (which I don't believe), it's still a sin.

This is, of course, the line of reasoning that made Ayn Rand (in)famous, and which today animates big-L Liberarianism. Like marxism, it rests on a reduction of human nature to that of meat machines, and cannot be said to be "conservative" in any meaningful way. If we believe in transcendant principles, we must act accordingly. If we believe transcendant principles are a fiction, they will only last as long as we can manage lying to ourselves; and then we will act differently.

[Stuart Koehl]

Coming from the perspective of an Eastern Christian, the issue of human freedom always comes to the forefront. God offers grace as a free gift, which we can accept or reject. The efficacy of the sacraments and the process of theosis demands our full and free cooperation with that divine grace, the descent and action of the Holy Spirit. Because of that, true belief cannot be coerced, and neither can Christian behavior. We are made by our choices, and attempts to "force the eschaton" by imposing the good invariably lead to moral catastrophe.

Because of the fall of man, God has placed government over us, to control the more egregious passions of men; he has given us laws as guideposts to help us rediscover the tarnished image and likeness that dwells within us. But those laws are of this world, and are no substitute for mastery of the passions and conformity to the divine will; God wants loving, obedient children, not robots or slaves who obey out of fear.

Because governments are instruments of man, they are prone to human faults, most especially the will to power, which if left unchecked invariably crushes human freedom and dignity, without which it is not possible for man to work out his salvation with fear and trembling. Though they did not think in these terms, the Founders did understand the need to restrict the reach of government into the private sphere, and so strictly defined where government could and could not interfere. Over the past 260-odd years, we have fallen prey to the temptation of using force majeur to resolve problems at the national level, to our cost.

Now, regarding the issue of how to live as a Christian and raise children in a non-Christian or post-Christian world, I think that those who attempt to insulate their families from the culture around them, or to shut out the world altogether as something ultimately corrupted and corrupting, as making a serious error. Certainly that was not the position taken by the Greek Fathers, who lived in just such a culture (Christianization in the East was not really completed until the end of the fifth century, and in the West, much later than that). They did not accept Tertullian's argument that Athens has nothing to do with Jerusalem; rather they saw much that was both admirable and useful in the "philosophies" of the Greeks and made use of them. They did not eschew classical learning, or turn up their noses at Homer, Sophocles, Euripides, Plato or Aristotle. They themselves went, and sent their children in turn, to the Athenian Academy, because they wanted them to have the best possible education, the better to deal with the arguments against Christianity on the one hand, and to put forward the best case in its favor on the other.

As for the popular culture, it was probably as drenched in sensuality--if not moreso--than our own, and it was utterly inescapable. As with all agrarian societies just barely above subsistence, there was a constant fixation with fertility--herms were everywhere, as were other pagan deities like Priapus, Aphrodite, Cupid and Dionysius. Pictures and statues we would considered pornographic were on public display in the best houses, to say nothing of public buildings and temples. So how did the Fathers manage to live Christian lives and raise Christian families in such a toxic environment? If we were to extrapolate from the dire warnings issues here about our own culture, we would expect Christianity to have become extinct or at least receded into a marginal cult by the sixth century, rather than by becoming the dominant faith all across Europe, the Middle East and large swaths of Africa. What did they know that we did not?

Just this--each man condemns himself, but no man is saved by himself alone. The key to living the Christian life comes from living within a Christian family, as part of a Christian community of fellow believers, who sustain and support each other. In short, the Church is the key to survival as a Christian: it provides us with guidance and precepts for our salvation, with the sacraments to transform us and make us partakers of the divine nature; with the means of forgiveness and reconciliation when we fall. Sustained by the Church, we need not fear for the temptations of the world around us, for we will recognize them for what they are and be able to resist them. We need not worry about being seduced by the intellectual arguments of sophisticated philosophers, for we know a deeper truth.

At the bottom, this approach does not lean on government either for solutions or for coercive authority over the lives of others. Government is limited to doing what it is supposed to be doing--preventing the worst among us from killing, stealing, or defrauding others. It provides the peaceful and tranquil environment we need so that we have the best possible chance of attaining salvation within the Church. We should not ask for more, not the least because the state is and will always be an amoral beast whose values are not those of the Kingdom and can never even approach them.

For better or for worse, the conversion of the world is a bottom-up, deaggregated process that involves saving one soul at a time. Attempts to do it from the top down will not work, and will probably make things much worse. The Church never had so much moral authority as when it lacked any actual power in the secular realm.

[G.S.]

"Making money was never my highest priority--but I'm not going to dump on those for whom it is..."

Hmm. So some people can be "decent, honorable, Christian human beings", even while "making money" is their "highest priority".

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Hmm. So some people can be "decent, honorable, Christian human beings", even while "making money" is their "highest priority".<<<

Oh, cut the crap, you knew perfectly well what I meant. Would you react this way if I wrote that "raising their children was their highest priority", or "helping the poor" was their highest priority, or "bringing about world peace' was their highest priority? I think not.

So, let me put my remark back into the context from which you removed it: "I am not going to dump on those for whom making money is their highest WORLDLY priority". Better? I take it you aren't a fan of Michael Novak, then?

[G.S.]

"Would you react this way if I wrote that 'raising their children was their highest priority', or 'helping the poor' was their highest priority, or "bringing about world peace' was their highest priority? I think not."

I'd have to think about the first one. But I most certainly do tend to be skeptical of statements about "helping the poor" or "bringing about world peace" being a "highest priority". Aren't you?

[NTBH]

W.E.D.,

Your view of eternity is very Eastern. We believe like Paul says that we will go from glory to glory and that we continue to grow in Theosis throughout all eternity. It's much more exciting than the whole sitting around and strumming harps for eternity (Fender Strats on the other hand...)

[Steve Nicoloso]

The efficacy of the sacraments and the process of theosis demands our full and free cooperation with that divine grace, the descent and action of the Holy Spirit. Because of that, true belief cannot be coerced, and neither can Christian behavior. We are made by our choices, and attempts to "force the eschaton" by imposing the good invariably lead to moral catastrophe.

The lash, of course, does not make us moral, be we cannot be moral without the lash. But again, Stuart, you prove too much: What basis is then there for any positive law? Arguments against abortion, polygamy, sodomy, "no-fault" divorce, substance abuse, excessive indebtedness and/or consumption do not depend upon divine revelation, but merely upon common reason... which is why most societies, successful ones at any rate, most of the time, mostly eschew such vices.

You read: "Economic growth based on increasing levels of debt (to consumers, industry and government) is inherently unsustainable and, ultimately, debases humanity." But you hear: "We gotta call out the brown-shirts to stop all those wicked people from buying those damnable SUVs." One can mean the former without implying the latter. In fact, the thesis that increasing government power and increasing centralization of that power forms the great bulk of the problem gets no argument from me. In fact, a return to humane self-government is probably impossible without a large-scale return to more strict federal (you might say "subsidiarity") principles. It is, rather ironically, the "crunchies" who, far more than you, Stuart, agree with the Reaganite proposition that More Government, especially Federal Government, is not the Answer. Now, if only he'd really meant it!

[Stuart Koehl]

I can't see any posts written after 16 October, though I know they are there. This is a test.

[NTBH]

The optimist believes the glass is half full, the pessimist believes that the glass is half empty, and the realist believes that someone needs to buy a smaller glass.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

This is a test to see if I can see anything posted after Bobby's October 16 entry. Oh wait, now I can see. Ah, Stuart has tried this already so at least I'm emulating the great among us.
:-)

[W.E.D. Godbold]

Hey, I like this new system of thread management!

Stuart, I don't know if your last large post (Oct 20, 2008 5:24:02 PM) was directed against anything I wrote--it's kinda hard to tell, but I'm mostly in agreement with it. I still think that the more Christians there are, the better things will be because this means these folks have been regenerate and I read Paul as saying that they have the ability to resist sin in a way that they did not prior to baptism (they've died to sin).

As for the popular culture, it was probably as drenched in sensuality--if not moreso--than our own, and it was utterly inescapable.

Inescapable is a pretty strong word that doesn't allow for a lot of nuance. Sensuality isn't necessarily bad, though you don't want to get caught up in it, especially at a young age when you're particularly vulnerable to a variety of bad experiences (drugs, pornography, etc.) This is true from a biological (neurochemical) perspective, but--to my shame--I know this from a rather more existential perspective as well. I don't think it's a bad thing to not expose your children to this stuff without a direct and responsible witness to its contrast with the good, the true, and the beautiful (that is, the Divine).

I agree with your prescriptions about the Church, as long as we understand (as you've often said) that the family is itself a part of the Church. I have seen dozens of children taken "to church" by their parents in the hopes that they would "catch" something that would make them "good". The parents didn't seem to support what they might be learning at church and the kids went off the deep end as teenagers (drugs, some crime, lots of fornication--some serial). This doesn't mention the instances in which duly authorized representatives of the church seemed to act as the enemies of Jesus Christ--introducing divination, sex and horror (via movies) and actively denigrating sexual continence to their 11-13 year old charges. (Yes, I was there.) My experiences in church youth groups, Sunday schools, and CCD classes was, as a whole, more positive than negative, but I've seen some bad stuff that could (and should) have been avoided.

[Michael]

>>The optimist believes the glass is half full, the pessimist believes that the glass is half empty, and the realist believes that someone needs to buy a smaller glass.<<

I believe my glass is too large, but I also believe it is half-empty. The cup only overflows in relation to Christ. Ergo, my glass will never be more than half-empty until the Second Coming. But I'm not going to decrease the size of my glass to fit the mold of this world. Of course I want something better! For some people, that happens to be luxury SUV's.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The lash, of course, does not make us moral, be we cannot be moral without the lash.<<<

So, the beatings will continue until morale improves?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Inescapable is a pretty strong word that doesn't allow for a lot of nuance. Sensuality isn't necessarily bad, though you don't want to get caught up in it, especially at a young age when you're particularly vulnerable to a variety of bad experiences (drugs, pornography, etc.)<<<

What we call pornography the Romans would call "tasteful home decor". A trip to Pompeii is in order. As for the rest of it, remember that brothels were ubiquitous, that temple prostitution was commonplace (especially among the eastern mystery cults), that nudity was taken for granted not only in the public baths, but also at the games, in the theater, and in art.

I had an interesting experience when i took my older daughter to see the sites along Hadrian's Wall this summer. We're crawling around the ruins of Roman Corstopitum (now Corbridge), when she stops, points down, and asks "Is this what I think it is?" I look down, and carved into the flagstone is a very realistic depiction of a rampant phallus. "Yes, dear, it is", I said. "Men don't change very much over the centuries, do they?", she asked. "No, they don't", said I.

The ancient world was agrarian. All agrarian societies are fixated on fertility--without it, they die. So, not only did children learn whence babies came at an early age, of necessity they got a lot of pictorial and even actual demonstrations of baby-making all the time.

[Stuart Koehl]

An engineer will tell you the glass has twice the capacity it actually requires.

[Rob G]

"Coming from the perspective of an Eastern Christian, the issue of human freedom always comes to the forefront."

From a certain angle this is undoubtedly true. I do not think, however, that the Eastern (or any) Christian take on freedom can be equated, or even squared, with a Friedmanesque economic definition of freedom which defines it as a simple removal of limits. Christian freedom assumes a telos, which the other idea of freedom does not.

[Joe Long]

Better perhaps to say "Joseph was spiritual while doing slave labor." A whole lot of a shepherd's job seems to be condusive to reflection, at least as I understand it. (Cowboys, too, during some seasons.)

[Stuart Koehl]

Cowboys would say sheepherding is conducive to a lot of other things, too.