A Judgemental Attitude

"It is not the responsibility of knights errant to discover whether the afflicted, the enchained and the oppressed whom they encounter on the road are reduced to these circumstances and suffer this distress for their vices, or for their virtues: the knight's sole responsibility is to succor them as people in need, having eyes only for their sufferings, not for their misdeeds."

~ Miguel De Cervantes (From: "Don Quixote")

The quote above does not apply only to "knights", but is illustrative of the kind of attitude all Christians should have.

Those who call themselves Christian and yet say things like:

"If I have to pass a drug test to get a job, you should have to pass a drug test to get welfare";
"If you can afford to buy beer and cigarettes, you don't need food stamps";
"Why the f**k does someone on welfare own an iPhone?" etc,

should seriously examine their conscience and carefully consider what sort of attitude this displays, for it is a judgemental attitude and is not consistent with the Gospel of Christ.

Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my Commandments" (John 14:15), and when asked which of the Commandments were the most important, said, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great Commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two Commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 22:37-40).

When asked, "Who is my neighbor?", Jesus replied with the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

In this Parable, we see a man helping a total stranger, even an enemy, using his own money and resources, never asking what caused the stranger to be in such a condition and not attaching any strings or limitations on his charity. This is not only a demonstration of real charity, it is also the example of the proper Christian attitude towards those in need.

Those who watch the so-called "news" and read and listen to political "commentary" that suggests that all people on welfare or receiving some other government assistance, are "lazy bums that don't want to get a job", should realize they are being manipulated by propaganda. Your thoughts and feelings are being played upon, your heart is being hardened by envy.

And what is envy? Envy is not wanting what someone else has - that is called covetousness - envy is wanting someone to be deprived of what you think they don't deserve to have. Trying to make someone feel guilty for having something that you don't, is also envy.
Envy and Covetousness go hand in hand and is the root of a judgemental attitude.

There are certainly going to be those who take advantage of government assistance programs and anything they can get their hands on, but it is not for us to become self-appointed Inquisitors. It is for us to realize that everything we have - everything - we owe to God's Love and Goodness, and not just because we have worked for and earned it. Our work and effort certainly does count, but ultimately, everything belongs to God and He bestows what He wills on whom He wills. Our notion of what is "fair" is decidedly different from God's, as can be seen in the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard:

"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and said to them, 'You also go into the vineyard , and whatever is right I will give you'. And they went. Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise. And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing idle, and said to them, 'Why have you been standing here idle all day?' They said to him, 'Because no one hired us.' He said to them, 'You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right you will receive.' So when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, 'Call the laborers and give them their wages, beginning with the last to the first.' And when those came who were hired about the eleventh hour, they each received a denarius. But when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received each a denarius. And when they had received it, they murmured against the landowner, saying, 'These last men have worked only one hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day.' But he answered one of them and said, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?' So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen" (Matthew 20:1-16).

Stop feeding and corrupting your mind with the political trash the media dishes out.
Stop worrying about what other people have and whether or not they deserve it.
Do you love yourself enough to have a beer now and then? A steak? A smoke? Enjoy it then, and love your neighbor as yourself by not denying him the same just because he's on welfare.
Tend to your own house and your own work, whatever kind it may be.
Give a little money to the beggers and panhandlers on the street. Don't try to figure out why they are there and don't worry about what they're going to do with what you give them. Your attitude about what you do is just as important as what you do. If you do a good deed with a resentful or begrudging attitude, you lose your reward for doing it.

You should not feel guilty if you have more than others; neither should you begrudge others for having more than you.

Be Thankful - for all things and in all things. There is no other way to live a truly authentic Christian spiritual life.

+++

Topics of Succession

The following is a discourse I had with a friend on Facebook. He calls himself the "Abnormal Anabaptist" and he is a good man of sound and profound faith. His concerns with the Orthodox and Catholic teaching on Apostolic Succession is illustrative, I think, of the misconception some of our Protestant brethren have regarding this doctrine. I hope perhaps it will be helpful to others who may have similar concerns. 

I guess I see "Apostolic Succession" as the doctrine that gives men positions of authority because they are in some way connected directly to men of the past. If that's the case, all believers who study the Scriptures fall under Apostolic Succession because, to some degree, they have all received teaching handed down from the apostles to their followers. I see this as distinct, if only by certain nuances, to the discernment used to determine what is canon and what is not. The difference is that it was followers of Jesus trying to discern what were the important texts to hand down in order to test and hold men accountable. Apostolic Succession is where the men themselves are the standard to which men are held accountable and I see that as a bit of a problem.I know the differences are subtle and that the authority of the men who determined the canon comes from some sense of the succession...but now that we do have the canon as the standard, those men who come after should then submit to that authority imparted to the canon because of that purpose. [ ]

.... I do not feel that there is an inherently hierarchical nature to the intended structure of the church. Yes, some men and women are wiser, more learned, but I don't think necessarily they should be placed in a position where they cannot be called to account for deviations from the standard that the church as community agreed upon. So if a pastor or elder or overseer strays from that standard, the lowliest believer who recognizes it can call them to account...not for pride, but for the good of the whole body. As I have seen Apostolic Succession invoked by some (perhaps not here), this does not seem to happen...the priest, pope, father, is unquestioned...their word is considered on par with the truth of the canon...and that I don't feel is right.

This is not what Apostolic Succession is; that is not it's purpose or function. Christ said that all authority was His and He transmitted that authority to His apostles in a direct way when He breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit; that which you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, that which you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven ... " and, "... those whose sins you forgive they will be forgiven, those whose sins you retain will be retained." (I'm not going to give citations here because I know you know the Bible well enough to know where all these are.) He gave them His own authority, the power of forgiving sins and binding and loosing and commissioned them and sent them out to "make disciples of all nations" and to baptize. They received the fullness of empowerment at Pentecost. What they received they transmitted to their successors. It had to be transmitted because the "gifts of God are irrevocable" and His word "does not return to Him empty but accomplishes the purpose for which it was sent". All of this was set in place not to give men positions of authority but to ensure that the sacred deposit of Faith in its fullness would be carried on and safeguarded, which resulted in the setting of the Canon and the Creed and would continue beyond and alongside these. 

Apostolic Succession does not make some men the standard to which others are held accountable; it makes those upon whom it is bestowed accountable to the Good Shepherd and to His sheep, because He told them, "Feed my sheep", and because "to those whom much has been given, much will be expected". This is a heavy burden, one not to be coveted. I know because it has been given to me and it will be expected of me. There is far more to Apostolic Succession than a believer studying the Scriptures and receiving teaching from them. Deacons and Priests (and other types of ministers) are *ordained*; Bishops are *consecrated* and there is a reason for this distinction. There is a mystical and transcendental connection that comes from the essential element involved in the Sacrament of Holy Orders, that being, the Laying-on-of-Hands. This is distinctly different than the general notion of laying-on-of-hands in that one can only confer/transmit that which one already possesses. In the sense of the "priesthood of all believers" all Christians can lay hands for the purpose of healing and a number of other things. The Bishop is consecrated by the laying-on-of-hands by three other bishops for the distinct purpose of conferring/transmitting Apostolic Succession and the authority of Christ. The laying-on-of-hands in this sense evolved from the Jewish practice of the father bestowing the hierarchical blessing on his firstborn and heir (as in Isaac and Jacob, Jacob and Ephraim / Manassah, etc).

... that I do not feel that there is an inherently hierarchical nature to the intended structure of the church.

Honestly, I don't know how anyone that studies the Scriptures can miss it. The implication is everywhere, in both Testaments. In the OT God said of Himself that He was king over His people. He called Prophets to prophesy and Judges to judge. Then the people wanted a king to rule over them so He gave them one which led to the Davidic Dynasty from which Christ descended. In Jewish temple worship there was a hierarchy of ministers, at the top of which was the High Priest descended from Aaron. It's obvious that Christ throughout His ministry recognized this hierarchy even though He Himself was not subject to it. He told the leper to "go and show yourself to the priest" and again, “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." In the Book of Acts, where we see the very beginnings of the Church, we see the foundation of hierarchical structure when the Apostles appointed subordinates - the seven Deacons (deacon from diakonos meaning "one who serves") - so that they could concentrate on the primary mission of preaching the Gospel. In fact, all four "orders" which form the government of the Church - laity, deacons, presbyters and bishops - are clearly visible in St. Paul's first letter to Timothy. The laity are also called "saints", the "faithful" and "brethren". Presbyters or "elders" are visible, their ministry from the start being to "rule", "labor in the world", and teach true "doctrine". St. Paul appointed elders in every local church and later instructed his apostolic apprentice, Titus, to do the same. 

(In no way is the ordained Christian priesthood seen as a throwback to or a reenacting of the OT priesthood. Rather, joined to Christ Who is our High Priest "according to the order of Melchizedek", Orthodox and Catholic priests are likewise ministers of a new covenant that supersedes the old.) 

The bishop is the "overseer" of the congregation and clergy in a given area. (Often the terms "bishop" and "elder" are used interchangeably in the NT with the bishop being the leader of the elders.) Nonetheless the bishopric is a specific office both in the NT and in the early Church. The Twelve were the first to hold this office (in Acts 1:20 "office" could literally be translated as "bishopric"). Early records show James was the bishop of Jerusalem by AD 49 and functioned accordingly at the first council there (Acts 15). Peter is on record as the first bishop of Antioch prior to AD 53 and later first bishop of Rome where he was martyred about AD 65. Perhaps the strongest early reference outside the NT to the presence of the four orders in church government occurs in the writings of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch from AD 67 to 107, the very heart of the New Testament era. To the church at Philadelphia he writes of "Christians [laity] at one with the bishop and the presbyters and the deacons". In another letter he writes: "Let everyone revere the deacons as Jesus Christ, the bishop as the image (literally "icon") of the Father and the priests as the senate of God for without them one cannot speak of the Church". 

In Orthodoxy spiritual authority is present in all four orders, with the bishop providing the center of unity. His authority is not over the church but within the church. He is an icon of Jesus Christ, "the Shepherd and Overseer [bishop] of your souls" (1Pet.2). Church leadership does not consist of one or more of the orders functioning without the others. Rather, the Church, with Christ as Head, is structured and conducted like a family, the Body of Christ, where all the members in their given offices work together as the dwelling place of the Holy Trinity.

Now, the sad thing is that, over time, as *the* Church evolved, some jurisdictions (even I daresay Orthodox ones) have become more "institutional". Bishops have become more administrators than shepherds and arch-pastors, priests more academics than laborers and the diaconate has come to be regarded as little more than a "stepping-stone" to the priesthood. Also the laity, in some cases, have either come to exercise too much control over the clergy or they have become more "sheeple" than sheep. All of this represents imbalance in the church which leads to disorder, disunity, scandal, heresy, schism and all the rest. This is partly why our Religious Community is only "affiliated" with that institution called the Anglican Communion. As a bishop I am of course accountable to Christ and to the people whom He has entrusted to me but I also must be accountable to a group of bishops that even the "lowliest believer" can appeal to in the event (God forbid!) I go astray. But that is as far as my institutionalism goes. I believe that the balance within the family of God and the Body of Christ is best achieved and maintained in the small Eucharistic Community. This is not to say that I deny "The Church" - the Church is real and it is really present in the world; it is mystical but not invisible. But I also believe there is such a thing as the Church of the Heart, and in such a sense we are all really One.

+ + +

The Fullness of Crumbs

We do not presume to come to this Thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in Thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under Thy Table. But Thou art the same Lord, Whose property is always to have mercy …

-- Beginning of The Prayer of Humble Access,

from the Book of Common Prayer.

In the traditional Anglican Rite, this prayer precedes the Communion rite. It is a prayer with deep meaning and I reflect on it here as it relates to something I heard recently.

A retired gentleman I know (an electrician by trade), like many others in these hard economic times has found it difficult to make ends meet on just his retirement. So, as a rather accomplished woodworker, he makes hand-crafts to sell. His profit margin is not very high at all but he does it for the love of it; (he keeps a picture of St. Joseph in his workshop and frequently invokes his help and intercession). We sit around in his garage/workshop and talk about things and he said to me once, “Sales used to be pretty steady. Now it seems like God is just throwing us scraps.” As a hand-crafter myself (though not with wood) I understood his meaning and the hint of despondency in his voice resonated with me. It got me thinking about scraps. And crumbs.

In an age when so many churches and pastors preach a Gospel of social prosperity those who fall prey to believing such a false concept naturally cannot understand why, when they seem to be doing what is right and good, they do not prosper financially. Of course, many of the preachers of such a gospel seem to prosper well enough as do many who seem to have no regard for God at all. In the face of all this it is easy to understand why some give into despair and even begin to envy and resent those who have more than they. Some even make it the thrust of their political ideology under the guise of “justice”. But the bringing about of justice – true justice that is -  is the property of God, not of philosophies or ideological political systems. It is not for us Christians to try and affect the outcome of history. We do well to heed the advice of the Psalmist:

Do not fret because of the wicked; do not envy those who do evil: for they wither quickly like grass and fade like the green of the fields. Be still before the Lord and wait in patience; do not fret at the man who prospers; a man who makes evil plots to bring down the needy and the poor. Calm your anger and forget your rage; do not fret, it only leads to evil (Ps. 37).

Back to scraps and crumbs.

When I think of scraps and crumbs I naturally think of something that is a remnant, a leftover, something that is lacking wholeness or fullness. But when I reflect on the gifts and activities of God – His life-giving energies (My grace is sufficient for you), the sacrifice of His Only-Begotten Son ( .. it is finished), the indwelling of the All-Holy Spirit ( .. who will teach you all things) – I can see nothing that is lacking. All is filled and being fulfilled – in Christ. Is this perspective based on my having wealth and possessions? It is not. In times past I have had a lot and I squandered a lot. Now I survive on the crumbs that fall from God’s Table, and that is sufficient for this time and place in my life, according to His Most Excellent Will. I am not concerned with what or how much someone else has for they would not have it if God had not allowed it to be so. Nor do I seek to benefit from the redistribution of others property. I am concerned with being grateful for and a good steward of what He has given and entrusted to me.

Nothing God does or gives is lacking or deficient in any way. God is Good and everything He does and gives is completely and wholly good. He gives us fullness and we offer Him leftovers and complain about our circumstances. We throw Him our scraps and pity ourselves because we have received only crumbs. If we are unable to perceive God’s love and wholesome Goodness in the midst of our circumstances and in some sense learn to be at peace with the circumstances because of the Goodness within, then the transformation that comes through the renewing of our minds is not yet complete and we are still conformed to the world (Rom. 12:2). The deficiency is on our part, not God’s.

If we can let go of our grievances and not fret over disparities; live humbly and honestly before Him, occupying our minds with all that is good, pure, true, noble and beautiful and enduring to the end whatever comes, we will be saved and lack for nothing that is good.

Does this mean we will never struggle with the means to obtain the things we need and sometimes want? No. We will struggle. Some will struggle more than others. But we will not be overcome if our heart’s desire is fixed on God.

It is in the midst of the hardest struggles when God showers us with the crumbs from His Table. We must never be afraid or ashamed to look for and gather up these crumbs, for each one of them is a full meal and contains its own unique abundance.

+ + +  

Daybreakers and the Dawn From On High

In the tender compassion of our God, the dawn from on high shall break upon us, to shine on those who dwell in darkness and the shadow of death, and to guide our feet into the way of peace (Luke 1:78-79).

The Benedictus, or Canticle of Zechariah, is well known to those of us who pray the Divine Offices; it is the Gospel Canticle of Morning Prayer.

This portion of the Canticle comes to mind in light of two things I have recently witnessed.

The first was a television news piece about Anne Rice, the author of the famous Vampire Chronicles series of books. In the interview Ms. Rice spoke of her conversion to Roman Catholicism and that she has recently left the Church because of its position on homosexuality; she disclosed that her son was homosexual and she could not be part of a religious institution that taught that her son’s condition was “disordered”. She went on to say that she would miss most the Liturgy, the ritual, but implied that the Church’s position on this issue was tantamount to persecution.

The second was the movie Daybreakers, which turned out to be not at all the usual kind of vampire movie. This was a futuristic world in which all but about 20% of the population were infected with vampirism. The entire governmental and corporate structure of society had been altered to accommodate the special needs of vampires: cars with built-in instant window tinting to block out sunlight; if the car door is opened during daylight, instead of the usual beeps that remind you the keys are still in the ignition or the headlights are on, there’s a computerized voice saying, “UV Warning!” All business and work is done at night and there are public service announcements broadcasted all over to remind everyone how many hours until daylight. The remaining human population is hunted and farmed for blood supply. This naturally is pretty big business. The only problem is the humans are becoming extinct. Blood rationing begins and the breakdown of society follows. Starving vampires begin feeding on each other, which poisons them and turns them into “subsiders” – nasferatu-like creatures, beastly and quite insane. They are shunned and feared and when captured are disposed of by dragging them out in chains into the sunlight – execution by spontaneous combustion. The government and corporations begin research into creating a blood substitute vampires can subsist on, giving the humans time to reproduce. Some vampires are sympathetic to the human condition and want the blood substitute so that humans and vampires can co-exist. This is the position of the main character who wants a real cure and not just a fix. He finds that the cure has indeed been discovered by a group of refugee humans led by a former vampire who has been cured. The cure turns out to be controlled exposure to sunlight in an oxygen-deprived atmospheric chamber, which permits the intensity of the sunlight but reduces the devastating combustive effect. The main character himself is cured and further discovers that when vampires feed on a cured vampire they too are cured, but more than a few have to give their lives in order for the cure to spread.

The real complication to all this, however, is that some of the vampires do not want to be cured. They do not want to become human again and be subject to disease and eventual death. They believed there was nothing wrong with them, there was no way back and it was better to simply solve the food supply problem.

Now what do these two things have in common besides vampires?

The storyline of this movie, in some respects, I believe, can serve as an analogy of sorts to the homosexual condition in our society. That there are people afflicted with a pathological mental disorder, unable to recognize that there is something wrong and therefore do not want to be cured. Instead, they make their illness a social issue of “equality” and “rights” when it is in fact neither. They seek to make a destructive behaviour socially acceptable through means of legal coercion. They are dwelling in the shadow of death, unknowingly.

In the case of Ann Rice, the Dawn from on High has definitely shown upon her but she apparently made the choice of approving her son’s condition (equating that approval with love) over accepting the Truth of the Gospel as taught by the Church (as if there is an absence of love in Truth).

The Church cannot change its teaching in this regard. If it does it ceases to be the Church and becomes instead an apostate to the Christian Faith. The very idea that churches calling themselves Christian can alter a fundamental and salvifically essential moral teaching on the premise that it “discriminates” and/or “persecutes” a specific group of people is outrageously arrogant and a pitiable delusion.

But at the same time we Christians must acknowledge the worthiness of every human person to be loved, and no less those who are infirm of mind or body.

Would it not have been more loving of Ann Rice to tell her son that though he suffers from an illness that he is no less a beautiful person? And offer him the same healing faith that she herself had found?

Would it have been loving on the part of prominent mathematician and Nobel Laureate John Nash’s wife to allow him to continue in his state of schizophrenia, rather than telling him the truth, helping him to realize his sickness and allowing A Beautiful Mind to be healed?

Why do we often show revulsion and hostility to these people (thereby earning the label of “homophobe”) or take the politically correct road of relativism instead of loving them enough to tell them the truth and helping them to see their need of a cure?

There is indeed specific spiritual psychotherapy for the homosexual affliction. And indeed, there will always be some whose minds are so thoroughly overthrown that they will never accept it. But for our part, as Christians, let us learn how to offer consolation instead of condemnation, compassion without giving in to compromise.

Homosexual people are not vampires though some of them have willingly chosen to dwell in darkness. Some who are not so afflicted also dwell in darkness. Even a few who have been enlightened by Faith walk a fine line between darkness and the Light. In every case that line runs directly through the human heart. It can never be entirely removed (at least not in this life) but it can be influenced to go one way or the other; the Way of Light and the way of darkness is always a choice.

Interesting that Our Lord has said His disciples are to be “salt” and “light” – two specific things that are traditionally repulsive to vampires and other such critters. The true meaning of this, of course, is that Christians are to be reflections of the Divine Light and preservers of God’s Covenant in the world.

Perhaps it is possible to think of this in imaginative terms like ‘Daybreakers from on High’?

However we may tend to think of it, we simply must choose to love, that those who are dwelling in their particular kind of darkness may have enough Light to find their way back. There is always a way back: it is Christ.

+++

Strange Notions - Or Not!

There are some really strange notions and ideas to found on the net. Some are so strange they actually make a bit of sense.

For the record, I will state that I am not an anarchist nor am I a Libertarian (though I happen to agree with a few points of their platform, but by no means all). I simply found this to be rather intriguing.

The following is taken from a 2001 lecture by Roderick T. Long, a teacher of Philosophy at Auburn University.

Given the vast inequality in authority between the state apparatus and its subjects — given, for that matter, the vast socioeconomic inequality between them — how is it that so many who think of themselves as dedicated above all to human equality so readily become apologists for the state?

... how those who appear so sensitive to constraints on choice, and to differences in bargaining power, when these derive from market factors, become so amazingly oblivious to the constraint on choice, and differential bargaining power, represented by the armed might of the state, empowered to enforce its demands by legalized violence.

The fifth-century B.C. Chinese philosopher Mo-tzu once remarked that if someone can recognize an act of unjust aggression when it is perpetrated by one individual against another, but not when the same act is perpetrated by an organized group of individuals, such a person must be confused about right and wrong.

Socioeconomic egalitarians, then, must likewise be under some sort of confusion. But what, and why?

A cynic might respond that socioeconomic egalitarians are not confused at all; their supposed devotion to equality is simply a disguise for powerlust, and they exempt the state from their criticisms because they plan to wield its reins, or at least to get in good with those who do. This strikes me as a fair analysis of some, but only some, socioeconomic egalitarians. Most of the socioeconomic egalitarians I know personally are sincere in their egalitarianism and well-meaning in their statism.

I don't mean by this that they are entirely innocent; after all, an innocent statist would have to be one who says: "I recognize—as who could not?—that the coercive subordination of individuals to the state by the means of systematic legalized violence and the threat thereof is a great evil. But this evil is, unfortunately, necessary in order to prevent evils still greater." A statist who took this point of view could not be cheerful about her statism, but on the contrary would have to conduct herself with the tragic solemnity of Agamemenon sacrificing his daughter to save the fleet.

The innocent statist, too, could hardly permit herself to reach this grim conclusion without first investigating possible alternatives—which, for a statist in the academy, would have to involve carefully researching and trying to refute (and desperately hoping to be unable to refute) the wealth of libertarian literature arguing that most of the other evils she cites can be prevented through nonstatist means. By these criteria, few statists qualify as innocent. To seek for alternatives to inequality in authority would be to acknowledge that statism involves such inequality before ascertaining that alternatives are available, and this would force upon the statist an unpleasant choice she prefers to avoid. Hence I regard statism as being, at least in most cases, a moral vice, rather than a mere cognitive mistake, in much the same way that racism and sexism are moral vices, not mere cognitive mistakes.

But, again like racism and sexism, statism is the kind of moral vice that tends to enter the soul through self-deception, semi-conscious osmosis, and a kind of Arendtian banality, rather than through a forthright embrace; it is a form of spiritual blindness that can, and does, infect even those who are largely sincere and well-meaning.

+++

Eternal Memory or Eternal Life

Having just seen the movie Avatar (I rarely see movies at the cinema house anymore), I have to say it is one of the most amazing films I have ever seen. Visually stunning, thrilling and a timeless story: an indigenous, holistic, technologically primitive people rising up to defend and preserve their way of life against a technologically advanced aggressor. That would be us, by the way (humankind, that is). This is what we have been doing to ourselves since the Fall. One person or a community of persons who are not able to defend what they have will have it taken from them by the stronger. This is a simple and unavoidable fact. It may not be right but it nevertheless happens.

The most fascinating thing here, however, is the concept of transference of human consciousness into a genetically compatible alternate body. This is an age-old concept that has been presented in many varieties of science fiction, from the old TV series The Twilight Zone to Star Trek and many others. It is a very exciting and attractive concept, considering that many of us (who are willing to admit it) are not very happy with the bodies we have been given; we would much prefer to be some one or some thing – other. Hence we have movies, video games, the Society for Creative Anachronism, etc, all of which are avatars of a sort that provides temporary means of escape from reality.

I understand the desire for this all too well. I have never had much liking for my own reality. I would much prefer to live in the Shire with the Hobbits, with the Elves in Rivendell or on one of the Jedi worlds. Not because I consider these to be utopian worlds but because life there would have a different character, based on a different dynamic, or so I imagine. So while we fantasaical-minded folks have to live in this reality, we ignore as much of it as possible, allowing our fantasies to translate our lives into a manner of perceiving that views this reality as highly abstract. In other words, we don’t belong here.

Of course this reality and our fantasy world both share a common element that is inescapable and cannot be ignored no matter how much we want to: the reality that all things die. Death is the hardest and most frightening reality we face and we either face it with hope or we face it with dread. But our technology is advancing so much (along with our immorality and arrogance) that the idea of a constructed immortality is no longer confined to the realm of science-fiction fantasy. To wit:

An Introduction to Transhumanism

Attempting to Make a New Type of Person

By E. Christian Brugger

WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 21, 2010 (Zenit.org).- The ideas of the young international movement known as "transhumanism" are beginning to characterize the thinking of an increasing number of clinicians and bioethicists. I thought therefore that our readers might profit from a brief introduction to them.

Transhumanism is really a set of ideas that has developed in response to the rapid advance of biotechnology in the past 20 years (that is, technology capable of and aimed at manipulating the physical, mental and emotional condition of human beings). Conventional medicine has traditionally aimed at overcoming disorders that afflict the human condition; it has prescribed leeching, cauterizing, amputating, medicating, operating and relocating to dryer climates, all in order to facilitate health and militate against disease and degeneration; in other words, the purpose has been to heal (i.e., has been broadly therapeutic).

Technology is now making possible interventions that in addition to a therapeutic aim are intended to augment healthy human capacities. There is a gradual but steady enlargement-taking place in medical ideals from simply healing to healing and enhancement. We are all too familiar with "performance enhancing drugs" in professional sports. But biotechnology promises to make possible forms of enhancement that go far beyond muscle augmentation.

Germ-line gene therapy, for example, still in its infancy, aims to genetically modify human "germ cells" (i.e., sperm and eggs) in order to introduce desirable intellectual, physical and emotional characteristics and exclude undesirable ones. Since the modifications are made to cells in the "germ line," the traits would be heritable and passed on to subsequent generations. Drugs to improve mental function such as Ritalin and Adderall are increasingly being used by the healthy in order to enhance cognitive abilities. One study has shown that close to 7% of students at U.S. universities have used prescription stimulants for enhancement purposes. [1] That number appears only to be increasing.

Research is rapidly progressing on advanced technologies such as direct brain-computer interfacing (BCI), micro mechanical implants, nanotechnologies, retinal, neuromuscular and cortical prostheses, and so-called "telepathy chips." While it is true that each of these technologies may play a role in transforming the lives of disabled patients to enable them better to communicate, manipulate computers, see, walk, move their limbs and recover from degenerative diseases; transhumanism sees them as potential instruments for transforming human nature. The 2002 version of the Transhumanist Declaration states: "Humanity will be radically changed by technology in the future. We foresee the feasibility of redesigning the human condition, including such parameters as the inevitability of aging, limitations on human and artificial intellects, unchosen psychology, suffering, and our confinement to the planet earth."[2]

Their most radical proposal is to overcome death. Although the aim sounds fanciful, there are influential scientists and philosophers committed to it. The prominent transhumanist scientist and inventor, Dr. Ray Kurzweil, argues that for most of human history death was tolerated because there was nothing we could do about it. But a time is rapidly approaching where we will be able to isolate the genes and proteins that cause our cells to degenerate and reprogram them. The assumption of death's inevitability is no longer credible and ought to be retired [3]. Michael West, the CEO of one of the largest biotech companies in the U.S., Advanced Cell Technology, agrees. He argues that "love and compassion for our fellow human being will ultimately lead us to the conclusion that we have to do everything we can to eliminate aging and death."[4]

Although I think the majority of people in the Western world do not yet share transhumanism's more radical ideas, the assumption concerning human autonomy that underlies the transhumanist philosophy is practically universal in secular medicine and bioethics today. Living wills enshrining people's right to refuse life-sustaining treatment for practically any reason, even if they are not dying, are becoming as routine in our hospitals as informed consent forms. Oregon, Washington and Montana have legalized physician assisted suicide each using as a rhetorical bludgeon the argument that autonomy guarantees a person's right to exercise self-determination not only over his life but also over his death. If autonomy extends to these things, then surely it guarantees the liberty to enhance my capacities.

I fear that the only thing presently preventing wide-scale affirmation of the transhumanist imperative is an emotional "yuck" factor, which we can be sure will gradually subside under the gentle and inexorable prodding of secular opinion. When it does, our rationality insulated by this extreme notion of autonomy will find itself helpless against the technological imperative which says: if we can design our perfect child [5], if we can be smarter, stronger, and more beautiful [6], if we can extend human life indefinitely [7], then we should do it. If embryos are sacrificed through the experimental process required to perfect this technology, or if inequalities are introduced to the advantage of some and disadvantage of others; these are the costs of progress!

The 2008 Vatican Instruction on bioethics, "Dignitas Personae," addressing the use of biotechnology "to introduce alterations with the presumed aim of improving and strengthening the gene pool," strongly cautions against the "eugenic mentality" that such manipulation would promote. The mentality likely would stigmatize features of hereditary imperfection generating unfair biases against people who possess them and privileging those who possess putatively desirable qualities.

The instruction concludes saying: "It must also be noted that in the attempt to create a new type of human being one can recognize an ideological element in which man tries to take the place of his Creator" (No. 27).

Endeavoring to manipulate human nature in this way "would end […] by harming the common good" (No. 27).

This is nothing short of a new manifestation of The Great Lie first told in the Garden of Eden – ‘You don’t need God; you can become a god without God.’

Or at least, you can become immortal.

The quest for immortality has been active since we lost it in the Garden. We comfort ourselves in this quest for the unobtainable with the idea that we live on in the memories of those who love us. In other words, no one ever really dies as long as someone remembers him or her. This idea is not necessarily and entirely false. Our remembering surely does count for something. But keeping someone alive in our memory is not the same thing as actual eternal life.

God’s remembering causes existence.

Our remembering does not.

We want to be immortal but we are not, so modern man has put his faith in science and technology to achieve this ‘pearl of great price’. We desperately want eternal life but we want it on our terms and under our control, not according to God’s conditions. We reject God’s conditions not because they are harsh or beyond our capacity but because they require an absolute answer to the question: Who do you say I am? Many have turned to science simply because it does not ask this question and accepts all answers.

Seeking the answer to that question will always lead one into a confrontation with Religion (usually within the meaning of institution not of virtue). That confrontation produces more questions: Which one is right? And which sect within which one is right? Some grow weary of trying to figure it out and opt to create their own. Others let the answer be relative to each one’s perception. Both cases allow us to imagine ourselves as masters of our own destinies and agents of our own change, enabled by the attitude, which says, “I refuse to be led around by the nose by dogma!” I wonder if they realize they are indeed being led around by the nose – by the arrogance of their own opinion, which they value more than truth (and we know who’s holding the stick with the carrot).

The character of Dr. Walter Bishop on the TV series Fringe said, “All destinies lead to the same destination.” In a certain sense that could actually be true but that is not to say that free will is an illusion. We are all destined to stand before the Judgment Seat of Jesus Christ but the willful choices we make on that journey determines if it will be a judgment of condemnation or of absolution; a resurrection to eternal endurance or of enduring Communion.

This is our ultimate destination. Whether we be in the Shire, in Rivendell or on Pandora; whether we be a Jedi or in the body of our avatar, and we had best be ready to give an answer to Him who is Uncreated Reality.

+++

Not Exactly A Follow-Up

In my three previous Speech Therapy posts, I made passing references to Multiculturism and Political Correctness, (both of which I hold in utter contempt). I did not expound on these in depth, largely because I recognize my own lack of ability to do so. Happily, I discovered this wonderful piece which expounds on these topics quite well.

Frank Ellis -- Multiculturalism and Marxism



+++

Speech Therapy - End Game.

"As a result you can use the word democracy to sanction in his thought the most degrading (and also the least enjoyable) of all human feelings. []
The feeling I mean is of course that which prompts a man to say 'I'm as good as you'. []
The first and most obvious advantage is that you thus induce him to enthrone at the centre of his life a good, solid resounding lie. []
No man who says 'I'm as good as you' believes it. He would not say it if he did. The St. Bernard never says it to the toy dog, nor the scholor to the dunce, nor the employable to the bum, nor the pretty woman to the plain. The claim to equality, outside the strictly political field, is made only by those who feel themselves to be in some way inferior. []
Now this useful phenomenon is in itself by no means new. Under the name of Envy it has been known to the humans for thousands of years."

--- C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters.

Mister Clive Staples Lewis was translated from this life in 1963. He did not live in this life long enough to witness the full onslought and subsequent effects of the 'sexual revolution', feminism, multiculturism, globalism, political correctness and the like. But he certainly, so it seems to me, saw the beginnings of these things which is apparent in his writings, particularly the work I have quoted from in these three posts. I tend to think he was gifted with a certain prophetic insight.

I have focused in these three posts on the corruption of our common vernacular in the hopes of arousing awareness of the types of words and phrases in common use and to inspire, perhaps, a greater caution in what we say and how we say it.

The state of our current society makes it a rather difficult task to simply not participate in what is regarded as acceptable terminology; simply not participating is a little harder than yielding to the urge to correct someone else's way of speaking. It's always easier to correct someone else than to correct ourselves but with ourselves we must start. A heightened sense of awareness of the changeable nature of things comes, first and foremost, by Grace but we also must cooperate with that Grace in order that it might become active within us. The guarding of the heart and the spiritual intellect against the constant bombardment of the senses by the hypocrisy, disinformation and moral degenerateness disseminated through various media forms challenges us to be very discriminating in what we give our attention to - and why.
Most of us (including myself) have probably given little thought to the subliminal messages we receive through our favorite television programs and other forms of 'entertainment'. We have unknowingly become catechumens of the doctrines of political correctness and multiculturism which influences our way of thinking, speaking and in some cases, behaving.

We have become overtly sensitive to things that (in the End) will not matter and desensitized to the things that do and will matter. It is no longer enough to "... let your 'yes' be yes and your 'no' be no"; we have to 'qualify' everything we say simply because no one (except perhaps those somewhat perfected in humility) are ever willing to accept a direct statement or answer they do not agree with - even if it is the truth. To give a simple and direct response is to most often be continually coerced to qualify every aspect of a given statement, resulting in the statement being dissipated into subjectiveness and rendered meaningless.

The late comedian George Carlin, (upon whom be Peace) notwithstanding his usual habit of flagrant vulgarity, had an amusing observation in one of his routines when he noted that we can no longer refer to a person as "fat" - they are "gravitationally enhanced", nor "short" just "vertically challenged", not "ignorant" but "intellectually deficient". Amusing but absurd, which was his point. Where have all the adulterers and fornicators gone? They're still here, we just call them 'polyamorous' now.

There is a women's clothing store in my area by the name of "Catherine's Plus Sizes" which has been in business for many years. I can remember back when the original name of it was "Catherine's Stout Shop". 'Stout' gave way to 'Plus', no doubt due to someone thinking their business would benefit from a word adjustment that does not draw strict attention to the simple reality that overweight women need larger size clothing. Or perhaps someone suddenly realized that the word 'stout' classically means 1): proud, fierce, brave; strong in body or build or 2): strong beer. Plus, using the word 'plus' gives the nicer connotation of something being added to something else, something being gained. This is quite clever since it vaguely conveys truth at the same time it does not offend vanity. This kind of word-play is what passes for "truth in advertising". There are many such examples. Vanity and Envy are kissing cousins and their song is "I'm as good as you".

It is also interesting to note an example of the vocabulary of de-sensitization.
Realizing that science has, over the course of time, developed and assigned specific clinical terms to specific things for specific reasons, one still has to wonder what exactly was going on in the room when they came up with some of these words.
An article on human reproduction offers the following:

"A genetically unique entity is formed shortly after conception, called a zygote."

"5 days or so after conception: The grouping of cells are now called a blastocyst."

"13-14 days after conception ... now referred to as an embryo."

"10 weeks it becomes a fetus."

These terms, in their original clinical context, are probably harmless.
Where they have done great harm, I think, is in using them to avoid referring to a human baby as a human baby. It is far more palatable to say we are going to aspirate the zygote/blastocyst/embryo or abort the fetus than it is to say we are going to murder your baby (at whatever stage of development it may be).
I believe these words have been deliberately employed by the abortion industry to de-sensitize people and lead them to believe that what they are destroying is something less than human.
It is shameful.

Just as shameful (if not more so) is how the word "God" is used with such flippancy.
"Oh-My-G*d" has become a popular exclamation and along with the age-old favorite has become the habitual methods of taking the Lord's Name in vain.
God is not an exclamation, a curse or the distributor of damnation.
God is Person and Presence. He is Beauty and Love and Goodness. "I AM God", He says, and there is no other." Someone might contend that the word "god" (especially with a small "g") is not, according to English grammar, a proper name. Perhaps that's true. But what then do we mean when we say it? Are we invoking a "god"? Cursing a "god"? What are we thinking? Obviously we are not thinking. We are reacting - badly. We have heard these expressions (and even used them ourselves) so much for so long we have become anesthetized to blasphemy.
Old Uncle Screwtape and company must be overjoyed. They are most surely not offended.

Now wheresoever Envy and Vanity doth go, the child called Offense surely follows and the "I'm as good as you" chorus reaches its crescendo.
It seems we get offended by a great many things, some more so than others. Some folks carry around so much emotional and/or ideological baggage that one is hard-pressed to come up with anything to say that will not cause sadness or anger. As far as it depends on me I try diligently to never offend anyone but inevitably it happens. When it does and I am made aware of it I ask forgiveness. If we do not love and forgive each other everything falls apart.
It is good to be sensitive to causing offense if Christ's humility is the motivation. If, on the other hand, the motivation is fear of retaliation or litigation, it is vanity.

I am entirely responsible for what I say and what I do.
I am not responsible for how someone perceives what I say or do.

Offense is a choice.

I always have the choice of whether or not I am offended by some one or some thing.
If I can remember this by keeping a constant awareness of God's loving Presence, then so many, many things that trouble me are revealed for what they are - vanity - and they no longer hold power over me.
Taking offense at social, religious, national or historic symbols; colloquial, ethnic or political terms and other such things, more often than not (if one is really honest with oneself), springs from the ground of Envy and Vanity. Whatever we say on such occasions, however we react, is usually just another form or way of saying "I'm as good as you."

There are forces at work in this world whose sole ambition is to create and maintain a fertile breeding ground for Envy, Vanity and Offense.

Some (I do not say all) who have appointed themselves as champions of the proverbial ‘plight of the poor’ really do not care all that much about the poor or their condition. They use their Christianity as a means to an end. At the core of the thrust behind the attitude and agenda of “soaking the rich”, “spreading the wealth around”, “affirmative action” “gay rights”, "universal healthcare", the "Green" movement, "Global Warming", etc, is the basic feeling of --- “I’m as good as you.”

Uncle Screwtape (that crafty old demon) really had it pinned down when he said, “… We do want, and want very much, to make men treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but, failing that, as a means to anything --- even to social justice. The thing to do is to get a man at first to value social justice as a thing the Enemy demands, and then work him on to the stage at which he values Christianity because it may produce social justice. For the Enemy will not be used as a convenience. Men or nations who think they can revive the Faith in order to make a good society might just as well think they can use the stairs of Heaven as a short cut to the nearest chemist’s shop. Fortunately it is quite easy to coax humans round this little corner. ‘Believe this, not because it is true, but for some other reason.’ That’s the game”.

I believe it is time to stop playing the game.
Stop playing the game of class (and every other form of) envy.
Stop playing the game of “I’m as good as you” vanity.
Stop playing the game of offense and instead be grateful.

“Hold on to what is good. Return no one evil for evil. Strengthen the fainthearted. Support the weak. Help the suffering”.

But let us do these things ourselves, personally, as much as we are able, motivated by the joy of the Holy Spirit. This will change the world more effectively than any government program or legislation.

I am not as good as you and I don’t have to be, because I know God and love Him and am loved by Him. And that’s all that really matters.

+++

Speech Therapy - Part Two

"You are to use the word purely as an incantation; if you like, purely for its selling power. [] As a result you can use the word ... to sanction in his thought the most degrading (and also the least enjoyable) of all human feelings. You can get him to practice, not only without shame but with a positive glow of self-approval, conduct which, if undefended by the magic word, would be universally derided."


--- C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters.



Lewis' focus in this passage was on the word democracy but the implications here go far beyond that. The types and choices of words we use in speaking has been subtly manipulated by political, academic and media elites to the point of creating a universal assumption. This same assumption is continually perpetuated by the same elites and we buy into it without question. Why? Well, it must be true of course. After all, the politicians talk that way (they never answer a direct question directly so they must be really smart). Those college and university professors, doctors and lawyers with all the MD's and DD's and PhD's after their names talk that way cause they're experts don't you know! Besides, they're on TV so they must be important.

My intent is most certainly not to disparage academic disciplines nor the people who practice them nor do I mean to suggest that all politicians are wicked or that all news journalists are dishonest. My intent is to point out that linguistic development over the last fifty or so years has taken a definite turn for the worse and our thinking and behaving is following suit.

Under the guise of 'political correctness' (the abominable spawn of the equally abominable 'multiculturism') we have been duped into accepting (even if subliminally) ideas, lifestyles and behaviours that, were it not for the introduction or manipulation of certain 'magic' words might have remained universally derided and modestly hidden.

Gay and Gender - two words that have morphed into something totally other than their original meanings and enthroned themselves with their morphed meanings into common speech to the point that no one hardly gives it a second thought.

Gay, by classical definition means, "mirthful, merry; bright-coloured, showy".

Likewise, Gender, classically has never had any other application outside of it's grammatical context: "kind, sort; any of the three 'kinds', masculine, feminine and neuter, of nouns, adjectives and pronouns".

I fail to see where this has any relation whatever to those afflicted with the desire to practice sodomy. In fact, according to R.V. Young, Professor of English at North Carolina State University:

"This English word [homosexual] is itself a very recent coinage. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, both “homosexual” and “homosexuality” first appeared in English in 1892, along with “heterosexual” and “heterosexuality,” in an English translation of Richard von Kraft-Ebing’s Psychopathologia Sexualis (1886) and turn up again five years later in Havelock Ellis’s Studies in the Psychology of Sex.
In other words, only in the late nineteenth century, when physicians began discussing sexual perversion as a medical rather than a moral problem in Latin treatises intended only for the learned and required a neutral, clinical term, was there a perceived need to refer to “homosexuality.” Moreover, it is not at all clear that the originators of the term had precisely in mind what is usually meant by “homosexuality” in contemporary parlance.

Yet, our contemporary parlance has universally adopted these words with their morphed meanings. Gender has come to mean the distinction between male and female and the word sex has become an action. Professor Young goes on to explain:

"The imposition upon an ingenuous public of the terms “homosexual” and “heterosexual” required a prior bit of linguistic legerdemain, namely, the redefinition of “sex” and the displacement of its principal original function by the term “gender.”
Latin provides the root (sexus or secus, probably from “cut” or “sever,” but more pertinently to “divide” or “halve”) for the English word “sex” and for its Romance language equivalents. Since the twentieth century, the word “sex” first evokes the specific notion of sexual intercourse and everything associated with it rather than the simple division of a species into male and female, or the division of humanity into men and women. “Sex” now means primarily an activity rather than a state of being, as in the awkward and ugly, but ubiquitous, phrase, “having sex” (of which the OED attributes the first usage to D. H. Lawrence in 1929).
Once “sex” had acquired this new semantic profile, it became easier to substitute “gender” for “sex” as the denomination of the difference between male and female, man and woman. If the first change, however, was the gradual result of recreation replacing reproduction as the principal association of “sex” in Western culture, the introduction of “gender” as the differentiating term was deliberate and fraught with ideological baggage." []

"Before the sixties, “gender” was largely confined to marking the distinctions between “masculine,” “feminine,” and “neuter” nouns and pronouns in various languages. The gender of a noun is quite often purely arbitrary or, if you will, “socially constructed”; that is, there is no particular reason why the Spanish word for pen (la pluma) is “feminine” while a pencil (el lápiz) is “masculine.” Or why in Latin, French, and Spanish the hand (manus, la main, la mano) is “feminine,” while the foot (pes, le pied, el pie) is “masculine.”
The application of the term “gender” to the difference between men and women thus implies, without the argument ever being made, that the differential roles of men and women in family and society are as arbitrary as the gender of nouns. The routine use of “gender” to identify as men or women, test-takers, applicants for driver’s licenses and insurance policies, and virtually all those who fill out almost any kind of document marks the bureaucratic imposition of the feminist view of the sexes on society as a whole."

Part of the tragedy of this imposition, so it seems to me, is the upheaval it has brought about within Christianity concerning the role of women in the Church. Some say women can serve as ministers/pastors/priests, some say no. Theological arguments and theoretical cases both for and against abound but my point here is not to make a case either for or against women's ordination. My point is to draw attention to how two separate issues - women's ordination and approval of the sodomitical lifestyle in the Church - has become, in a Siamese twin-like relationship, a single issue. If one makes an in-depth search of the myriad churches/religious organizations calling themselves Christian who permit or approve of women's ordination, one will find that nine out of ten times the same group will also approve/accept/ordain sodomites (although there are a few exceptions). Accompanied by the magic words of "social justice", "inclusiveness", "equality", the sodomite ideological agenda has attached itself to the feminist ideological agenda and the two are happily causing chaos across the ecclesiological board.

This need not be so. These are two separate issues and should be treated as such. One is essential to salvation and the other is not. As a priest whom I know and love once remarked, "It is entirely possible to be a practicing woman and be without sin". I personally know and believe that there are many orthodox Christian women who have a valid priestly vocation. Whether they act on this or not depends on their own decision to pursue it and finding an orthodox Christian jurisdiction that has a need for such ministry and willing to permit it but without the ideological baggage. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of public example that gives reason for the scepticism surrounding the women's ordination issue but there are good examples also, perhaps just not as public. Let each case be treated on its own merits and without universal assumptions predicated on "linguistic legerdemain".

Professor Young again: The words in which we express our ideas have consequences. To insist that words be used rationally and consistently is a first small step toward recovering moral reason. We should, therefore, refuse to accept “gender” as a relativistic substitute for the fundamental difference indicated by “sex,” while the latter term is expropriated to mean any kind of physical coupling. Above all, we should not acquiesce in the labels “heterosexual” and “homosexual,” when we are referring to men and women.
To concede the validity of such linguistic novelties is to allow the ideologues of the sexual revolution to control the terms of the debate. “Male” and “female,” “masculine” and “feminine,” designate normative components of actual human nature: anatomical, physiological, affective, and rational. []

"No really existing class of persons of a specific, distinct nature corresponds to the word “homosexual” in the way that men and women are distinct, complementary kinds of human being. A claim for specific “homosexual rights” is, therefore, frivolous, and the word is merely an ideological construct aimed at undermining the sexual norms inscribed in human nature".

We Christians should be acutely aware of the words and phrases we use to communicate - verbal and written - and especially in everyday conversation. To commonly use such terms as 'gay', 'lesbian', 'transgender' and even 'homosexual' in their modern socially constructed meanings is the same as granting credibility, acknowledgement and (implied) acceptance of modern immoral social constructs. We simply do not have to play this game.

Now some may contend that this is unrealistic, especially in the context of the modern workplace. I do not think so. And I certainly do not advocate the usage of vulgar, slang or otherwise unkind words when referring to anyone, no matter who or what they are. Nor do I mean to suggest useless chatter filled with pointless platitudes (although in some situations this may actually be useful if not the safest thing to do). But in all cases let us choose words of love, words of mercy and words that heal and let our silence speak to the rest.

"It is better to remain silent and to be than to talk and not be. Teaching is good if the teacher also acts. Now there was one Teacher Who 'spoke and it was made', and even what He did in silence is worthy of the Father. He who has the word of Jesus can truly listen also to His silence, in order to be perfect, that he may act through his speech and be known by his silence." ---

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians.

+++

The full text of R.V. Young's article may be found here:

Touchstone Archives: The Gay Invention

Speech Therapy - Part One

The good work our philological experts have already done in the corruption of human language makes it unnecessary to warn you that they should never be allowed to give [a] word a clear and definable meaning.

-- C.S. Lewis - The Screwtape Letters.

A recent re-reading of portions of this wonderful work of C.S. Lewis reminds me just how delightfully entertaining it is and how much wisdom hiding beneath the surface can yet be discovered.

One thing that came back to mind was my initial reaction to the above notation: how our language has indeed been corrupted. I do not mean just common foul slang and vulgarity - obviously there is that! But more to the point of perfectly good words and phrases, some of which have been around a very long time, whose classical definitions have been perverted, degraded or stripped from them altogether and if used in context with their classical meanings would now cause serious confusion if not outright hostility in some cases.

I am certainly and by no means a linguistic scholar but I find it so dreadful to observe how modernity can usurp otherwise perfectly legitimate words (or phrases) and distort them into meanings they never originally had and we just march right along with it off a verbal cliff like linguistic lemmings.

Take first, for example, the words conservative and liberal.

The word 'conservative' is pretty simple - to conserve or preserve something, or one who seeks to conserve or preserve something. For the most part, that simple meaning is still somewhat in place but unfortunately has also been married to other words that do not necessarily belong to it, such as right-wing, etc. These types of word compounds can tend to take on any meaning the speaker wishes to assign to them in any given context and the result is what the speaker intends and what the hearer perceives most often are two different things.

Much the same can be said for the word liberal, and I was happily surprised to find one classical meaning to be "pertaining to the arts, considered worthy of a free man".
How delightful! And how very sad that we predominately don't use it with that meaning anymore. The use of these two words now in our common PC vernacular serves only to promote a connotation of contention. And yet they fly through our airwaves like fiery darts setting people at odds with one another - even in the Church.

Perhaps we ought to pick better words and start over.

Although it would seem some have already tried by labeling themselves progressive.

I suspect this usage has come into play in order to imply some sort of distancing from the negatively employed usage of "liberal". Honestly I don't know what it's supposed to mean in PC-speak; progressing towards ... what?

I read the definition as "onward march; forward movement". Simple enough.

Someone wants to move forward and another wants to conserve. In the context of the Church it is entirely possible to do both but in terms of modern American politics I suspect the real problem lies in the recognition of the reality that one is usually always going to overide the other. Thus it becomes a competition, a power struggle, which is anything but what it ought to be.

There is a significant scene in the movie Star Wars-Revenge of the Sith where the young Anakin Skywalker is talking with Senator Palpetine (who is really the Sith Lord and becomes the Emporer). The Senator is drawing Anakin closer to the Dark side of the Force by suggesting there is a secret knowledge available there that he cannot learn from the Jedi because they suppress the Sith ideology. Anakin says that the Jedi use their power only for good to which Palpetine responds, "All who gain power fear to lose it - even the Jedi."

Replace the word Jedi with the name of any political party, corporation or "religious" institution and the statement still holds true.
We would do well to remember this, especially when we vote.

Another word, a beautiful word - Religion.

This is a word that carries both a classical and a theological definition.

The theological meaning is simple and can be found concisely in the Letter of the Blessed Apostle James chapter 1 verse 27. From this it should be clear (and so say the Church Fathers) that Religion is a Virtue and has always been regarded as such, which even the classical definition reinforces: "state of life (as of monks) bound by vows and a rule; religious order or rule".

This is simple and non-problematic.

The problem, so it seems, emanates from the latter portion of the classical definition: "system of faith in and worship of a divine power". From this (unfortunately) has emerged the modern consensus of Religion as an institution. There are most certainly other contributions to this mis-conception as well, not the least of which is the distortion of Christian ecclesiology (especially since the Reformation).

The descent of Religion as virtue to Religion as institution has continued for so long unanswered that now the word itself evokes negative responses from both Christians and non-Christians alike. For some (predominently the atheist sort) it is responsible for wars, terrorism and needless suffering and should therefore be eradicated or at least controlled and concealed. Others (predominently the Evangelical Christian sort) see it as an impediment to true spirituality. I cringe when I hear good-natured, well-meaning Christians blurt out, "I don't have a religion, I have a relationship!" If only they understood what they were really saying they wouldn't really say it. At least I hope they wouldn't.

Likewise, those who are quick to say, "I don't like organized religion" whenever the subject comes up are, I suspect, really using the statement to avoid revealing the state of their own heart which has more than likely been wounded in some way by involvement or encounter with some institutional 'church' or group that has perhaps failed to show the Face of Christ adequately. In all such cases the Body of Christ - the Family of God is diminished. And this is a great sadness.

Religion is a Virtue not an institution.

It is an operative Grace given by God in our state of life as monastics but is not necessarily restricted to a monastic state of life. God does not withold virtues from those who seek
to cultivate them but we must be willing to exorcise this modern myth of religion as institution from our thinking and begin to live what has been revealed to us.

May God give us Wisdom to un-learn what we think we mean.








+++