This forum was closed on October 1st, 2010. However, the archives are open to the public and filled with vast amounts of good reading and information for you to enjoy. If you wish to meet some Wardrobians, please visit the Into the Wardrobe Facebook group.

Article on Chesterton

Plato to MacDonald to Chesterton, Tolkien and the Boys in the Pub.
Forum rules
Please keep all discussion on topic and in line with our code of conduct.

Postby JRosemary » July 13th, 2008, 3:22 pm

User avatar
JRosemary
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: Jul 2006
Location: New Jersey

Postby Karen » July 13th, 2008, 4:05 pm

I have always imagined that paradise will be a kind of library. -- Jorge Luis Borges
User avatar
Karen
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 3733
Joined: Jul 2002
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Postby JRosemary » July 13th, 2008, 5:14 pm

Last edited by JRosemary on July 13th, 2008, 5:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
JRosemary
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: Jul 2006
Location: New Jersey

Postby rusmeister » July 13th, 2008, 5:33 pm

"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1795
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Postby JRosemary » July 13th, 2008, 6:06 pm

Actually, Rus, you can teach absolute values in the classroom of public schools: as I mentioned above, I try my utmost, first and foremost, to teach my kids the absolute value of the intrinsic worth of each and every human being.

Religion isn't absent from public schools either. The town I teach in is overwhelmingly Catholic, so it'd be kind of silly to start calling Christmas break 'winter break', lol. Sadly, however, many of the kids I teach don't seem to have the slightest clue about their faith. I know many of them went to CCD (Catechism classes) but either the classes were lousy or they just didn't take. At any event, I found myself having to answer really basic religion questions!

(Don't get me wrong--I can understand when they ask me about Judaism. Although they don't have particularly deep questions for me: it's more stuff like, "What do Jewish kids get to spend their bar mitzvah money on?--what do you mean they have to save it for college?! That sucks!" and "What does schmuck really mean? Cool--will the principal know what I'm calling him?")

But every once and a while a deeper topic comes up--like creationism. (I have to admit that it was wildly off topic, but the kids brought it up on their own and I wasn't about to stop the conversation.) In my whole class of 7th and 8th graders, almost all of them thought that there was only the biblically fundamentalist view and the scientific view of evolution. Only one kid knew that the Catholic Church has a much more subtly shaded view of these issues--and the other kids didn't believe him until I backed him up!

How can kids who have gone to CCD for most of their lives not know this? I honestly don't see this as a public school problem. This is a problem of parents not passing on their faith to their kids and CCD classes not, I suppose, being enticing enough.

(I am not, btw, picking on the Catholic Church here. I suspect this is a problem for many faiths. For example, I know there are a heck of alot of things that I think should be taught in Hebrew school that aren't.)

At any event, religion can't be thoroughly absent from public schools because you can't explain half of history or half of current events without it. We've got to give the kids a clue--especially since their parents and churches don't seem to be doing the job.

And I don't mind--in fact I'm thrilled--on those extremely rare occassions when my kids get into religious debates. I don't take sides, obviously. My job is just to answer questions and make sure that everyone remains respectful to each other and that everyone has their facts straight. ("No, Danny, that's not what the Catholic Church says. For heaven's sakes, your uncle's a priest! Go talk to the man!")

Also, I read an article recently on religions of the world classes in public schools. (I'm trying to lay my hands on it.) Interestingly, the article said that the courses are generally successful, often giving kids a richer appreciation for their faith--and they don't lead to kids wanting to trade their faith for another one. When I find the darn thing, I'll post it here.
User avatar
JRosemary
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: Jul 2006
Location: New Jersey

Postby rusmeister » July 13th, 2008, 6:41 pm

"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1795
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Postby Adam Linton » July 14th, 2008, 1:45 am

May I rejoin the conversation?

On the discussion on “orthodoxy” (and like the rest of you, I’m not referring to the Eastern Orthodox Church but on the concept of orthodoxy as a body of doctrine and practice considered as normative by some body—specifically considered in relationship with “others”):

It seems to me that this is a debate that goes right back to the earliest Christian theologians. (I believe that there were analogous debates in Judaism—but I’d need someone’s help here with this.)

Citing the early Christian debate might possibly inform the reflections here. I’m going to give thumbnail sketches:

The church leader and author Tertullian (155—222) exemplifies one approach. Simply stated, this is, if you’re not “in,” fully in, all the way in, then you’re “out.” And there really aren’t degrees of being out. It’s light or dark, truth or falsehood, the heavenly or the demonic. Simple as that.

On the other hand, Justin Martyr (100-167), the earliest major Christian apologist, has a distinctly different take on the matter. For him it isn’t so simple. As he puts it, since Christ is the Truth, where ever there is some truthful expression, even in part, even if mixed with other stuff, even if its connection with Christ is not (yet) recognized—there, in fact, must be at least some expression of Christ. He writes of the logos spermatikos, the seminal Word, shed abroad throughout all the world [see Prologue to John’s Gospel], even as Justin of course sees it as coming to decisive, unique revelation in the Incarnation. Furthermore, however, the fullness of the Incarnation does not suddenly turn the “partial” expressions of Truth into falsehood.

Neither Justin nor Tertullian denies the concept of “orthodoxy”; neither are relativists—both stress the mandate of Christian mission. But I think that one can see that their dispositions do typify certain mindsets—or manners of approach—that both have continued throughout the following centuries of Christian faith and practice.

The different approaches do have their manifestations in how orthodoxy (of any kind) relates to otherness.

Some are much more comfortable (in full loyalty to their own faith and in candid awareness of difference) affirming common expressions of the good, the beautiful, and the true. Such folks obviously are able to be more comfortable with pluralism and pluralistic settings (and I stress here that pluralism does not have to equal relativism!). We might say that these are following in Justin’s theological heritage.

On the other hand, I’d say those following in Tertullian’s footsteps (whether they recognize him or not!) are characteristically driven to pursue more monolithic patterns of personal and social engagement. The segregated, pure enclave must, in the end, be ideal. “Others” really can’t engage one another at profound levels.

Needless to say, persons and groups can in some senses combine these approaches to one degree or another (with varying levels of consistency or success). But they do represent, in my view, certain dominant cognitive gravitational centers. Individuals or fellowships do reveal either a “Justinian” or “Tertullianite” tendency. Both tendencies can appeal to Scripture and Tradition.

By way of brief wrap up: Tertullian, in the end, left the Church he had defended for so long to join the Montanist sect—which appealed to his rigorist mindset. Eventually for him, “orthodoxy” itself was not good enough. He later formed his own sect, by the way—as the Montanists proved to fall short for him, too. For me, it’s a sad end to the story of a great Christian writer. In devotion to a “super-orthodoxy,” he ends up, in the formal estimation of both Christian West and East, a heretic.

Justin was martyred when Marcus Aurelius was Emperor of Rome. Justin is commemorated as a Saint among Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglicans/Episcopalians; his feast day, 1 June. So of the most prominent second century theologians in the west, it is Justin, the more “generous” one—the one more able to live and bear with some ambiguity—who comes to regarded as a Church Father.

I’m editorializing here of course, but for me, there’s a lesson in this—something perhaps to be applied to the discussions at hand.

Once again, I’m aware that there were some rabbinic debates of somewhat similar dynamics, but I’ll need some help here for specifics…

Best regards to all.
Last edited by Adam Linton on July 14th, 2008, 2:24 am, edited 7 times in total.
we have not loosely through silence permitted things to pass away as in a dream
User avatar
Adam Linton
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 981
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: Columbia Falls, MT

Postby Adam Linton » July 14th, 2008, 1:46 am

[Sorry, duplicate post!]
we have not loosely through silence permitted things to pass away as in a dream
User avatar
Adam Linton
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 981
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: Columbia Falls, MT

Postby rusmeister » July 14th, 2008, 4:14 am

Thanks, Adam.

I'd go back and say that nearly everyone has elements of truth - of the Seminal Word, I guess you can say. But in the end, the other ways are not the Way, the Truth and the Light and do not lead to salvation (although God in His mercy, may save whom He will, in or out of the Church). In any event, one thing we don't do in Orthodoxy is to take one statement of one Church father and make that the guiding principle above all others (which, when people do, is pretty much the same as Sola Scriptura). Most truths are more complex that can be stated by a few sentences. We're a lot safer when we ask the Church what it teaches and what is the resolution of apparent contradictions. Of course, we are at different stages of growth and wisdom, and so might not all have arrived at the same place, but the truth is in the Church - it is not in us. That's one of the reasons why finding the Church is so important. We will inevitably "go stupid" (like Tertullian) without it.

In my comments, at least, I have been distinguishing between acting within the Church and acting in the world. Hope it's been clear that my political views, such as they are, while driven by my faith, are not in the name of that Faith - it's something bigger than me, and I think the only thing that can save one from Montanism, Protestantism, or any other -ism is a complete submission to the Church - ie, the Church is right and I am wrong, even when I question something - it is generally because I lack knowledge, experience, and wisdom. IOW, the Church has existed in all kinds of political climates, and is not dependent on me for survival. It is one thing to attempt to convince or force people into your faith. It is quite another to use secular power to enforce the morality of your faith on public action. My own position is that people may have a 'right' to sin, but that they have to keep it in the dark, and their choice to sin must not meet with public approval. They may believe something good that I hold to be sin.The public sphere vs the purely private sphere. If I had power I would not permit public expression of sin, whether some believed it was or not. But again, that position is subject to correction by the Church. In the end I am a fairly foolish person who may live to be 70 at most, which is not enough for most of us to attain wisdom.

While you are technically correct on relativism vs pluralism, it is a logical outcome, and the most likely one, of pluralism (sticking to religious pl/rel). We see it in the ecumenism of today just as we can see it in the Pantheon of Rome. As far as most people are concerned, this is how it is going to play out. It may not start out that way - but it becomes that way. As soon as you insist on not judging (and coming to a definite conclusion on) the merits of one idea over another, and this is what happens when conflict on practical issues arises.
Certainly public policy has a clear tendency regarding faith to be relativist. As far as I'm concerned (for practical purposes) one really does lead to the other.

Too many words.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1795
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Postby gameld » July 14th, 2008, 6:54 pm

I wish to echo rus in some ways here:

1. orthodoxy (notice small 'o') is important. In christianity this includes and, scrupturally only, does not exceed acknowledging the existence and truth of God, Jesus as His Son and part of the Trinity, Jesus death and subsequent ressurrection (sp?) as payment for each individual's sin debt to God the Merciful Judge.

2. Pluralism and relativism (effectively synonymous) are in direct contradiction to at least my faith and any other small-o orthodoxy. In the end they instruct the indivudual that his faith of equal value to all other faiths. My faith, as rus put it, states that Christ is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through [Him]." These two statements are and always will be mutually exclusive.
At the same time I feel I should state that, while those of any non-Christian faith are of the Enemy's camp, they still deserve my respect and the dignity that God gave each of them. My struggle is not against flesh and blood but against the princes and powers of this dark world. Those powers are not human. I do not wish to force them to my side. I wish to convince them by any reasonable means necessary (although a forceful temptation always exists).

3. The american (notice small 'a') educational system is nearly worthless. It fails to teach children anything except that each is entitled to value by others, value which they will not likely recieve, due to the fact that all ideas are of equal (relativistic) value. This was described earlier by someone else, but I would like to add that this requires that children are not taught how to think, just that thoughts are of value.
It also fails to teach them anything of value. Until I read Lewis on my own I thought that Christianity was unique in having a dying and resurrecting God. I was incredibly wrong. Any European would have known that from childhood after reading Ovid's Metamorphoses. I have never had good opportunity to read and discuss Ovid.

4. I don't care what country you're in, if Christianity is not actively and bodily persecuted then the Christians are failing. Persecution was a promise of Christ. In america we are not persecuted because we have bought into whatever the intellectual fad of three days ago (proverbially) is. Christians are just now truly moving out of modernism and into postmodernism even as postmodernism is slowly dying and becoming what me and a few friends have entitled 'commercialistic apathism.' We are marginalized, not attended and attacked. This has been the Enemy's strategy here for a long time. It prevents true movements of the faith in most respects.

5. I do not claim to be an american. The paperwork may say I am and I will legally claim that when it is convenient, but I am at least a few things before being an american.
A) Christian
B) Male
C) Nerd (specifically gamer/ fantasy/ sci-fi nerd)
D) College student
E) Cynic much of the time
and so on...
My citizenship is first and foremost in heaven. Later, after 'my own people' (esp. Christians and nerds) are taken care of I may occasionally care what "america' is doing. I'd be willing to bet that friendly and unfriendly neighborhoods have similar priorities, consciously or subconsciously. "We are of this city block." "We are of this color." "We are of this bloodline." etc. If I have a first priority culturally it is to my brothers and sisters in Christ. If I am to be of any subculture or ethnic group it is not that I am 3/4 swedish (merely a point of curiosity to me), but that I am a nerd and will speak nerd with nerds to explain the Gospel to nerds using their own "scriptures" (as Paul did with the Jews and occasionally Greeks).
This was a lengthy way of saying there is not a unified "america." There are many americas that don't really care one way or another about the other americas. We do not live "in harmony with one another." We ignore one another. When confronted with another sub-group of which I am not a part I will attempt to be a "Jew to the Jew" and so forth, but I recognize that I am not nor am likely to ever be one of them. It is also a truth of anthropology that "there are more differences between parts of an individual group than there are between any two groups."

6. Back on the original topic of this thread: Has it occured to anyone that perhaps GKC thought that the Jews, while not belonging in England, didn't belong not due to inferiority but to superiority? The Bible, both testaments, continuously comment on the greatness and importance of the Jews due to the special selection of them by God. Maybe he didn't think that they needed their own home so that they get out of his way, but that they deserved their own home because it's the home and role God gave them. This would seem to harmonize his ideas that they needed to advertise their foreignness as well as his full willingness to allow them to be a constant and potent part of English society. But this is just a suggestion for further discussion.
gameld
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Nov 2006

Postby Dan65802 » July 16th, 2008, 1:21 pm

"Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." - Martin Luther King
User avatar
Dan65802
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 2666
Joined: Feb 2007

Postby rusmeister » July 16th, 2008, 5:23 pm

"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1795
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Postby Dan65802 » July 16th, 2008, 5:40 pm

"Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." - Martin Luther King
User avatar
Dan65802
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 2666
Joined: Feb 2007

Postby Adam Linton » July 16th, 2008, 11:32 pm

we have not loosely through silence permitted things to pass away as in a dream
User avatar
Adam Linton
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 981
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: Columbia Falls, MT

Postby rusmeister » July 17th, 2008, 3:41 am

Well, I suppose for your sakes I will use a different word, such as "opponent" to get my point across. It's easier than quibbling over the different meanings we ascribe to "enemy". In no case was I advocating violence. I do advocate the use of force, which may result in violence, although we should certainly do everything we can to avoid it. You've read things into my statements that I did not intend - no doubt at least partly due to my inferior communication skills.

Speaking generally (and not about this case), one thing you'll notice is that I am careful about using Scripture to support arguments. If you understand the arguments against Sola Scriptura then I need say no more. All Scripture needs to be understood in its context (referring to Church teaching on it).

It can be possible, of course, to live at peace with your opponents, as Romans indicates. I'm not debating that. However, there may be times when action must be taken on a conflict and you have to take a stand that is not popular with your opponents, and conflict may result.

In such a situation, if you have political power - if you believe that voting represents real power, and/or if you occupy a position or office that has real power - you should use it to support that stand and prevent the slide of the nation (society) into ungodliness. If you don't, you may have to put up with your opponents' imposition of their beliefs on you and your family, or, perhaps even withdraw from a society that is becoming more and more openly ungodly - particularly if you must protect children -(the practical meaning of living at peace with others).

I guess how this connects with the discussion on Chesterton is that the acceptance of pluralism, of having the norm be people disagreeing on what is truth is opposed to what is good and right about national unity and in a generation or two the grandchildren can hold beliefs diametrically opposed to their grandparents, which would have said grandparents turning over in their graves, and which they would fight tooth and nail to prevent. ("Gay marriage", for example. Women as priests who administer sacraments. Diversity and tolerance of anything at all, etc etc)

Hope that makes sense and is properly understood. :smile:
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1795
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

PreviousNext

Return to Inklings & Influences

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered members and 10 guests