Yesterday I had the pleasure of reading Jim Belcher’s Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional (Downers Grove: IVP, 2009).  I just learned about it a few weeks ago and after checking it out on Amazon, I thought I should get it since I enjoy reading 21st century books about “church.”  I’ve read quite a bit of Emergent stuff so I figured this would be right up my alley (though Belcher isn’t “Emergent” technically speaking he knows “Emergents” well).  I wasn’t disappointed – I’m glad I read it.

Of course, there are some things about the book I’m not in line with.   I’m not too excited about “transforming culture;” I would rather talk about vocations than “kingdom agents.”  I would balance the emphasis on community with a discussion of the covenant of grace.  I’d like to see some discussion of how “authentic church” is highly subjective.  I’d also like to see an interaction with the Regulative Principle of Worship.   At the same time, I don’t want to overlook the helpful parts of this book.

First, I’m with Belcher: we can learn from the critiques the Emerging crowd levels at the “traditional” church.  I’m completely of the mindset that “postmodernity” or “post-postmodernity” can teach us some things and we should be open to learn from critique.   Also, to be sure, Belcher is right in saying that the Emerging church is broad/vast – some guys are halfway decent while others do indeed mess up the gospel.  I appreciated the “gentle” tone of this book; it wasn’t an angry fundamentalist (over)reaction to postmodernity.

Second, Belcher makes a few good points about some of the weaknesses of “Gen X” type churches (including Emergents).  He says they are quite segregated.  Many of them have “a music style targeted to a particular age group and the church is no longer what it is supposed to be – a family with all ages worshiping together” (p. 28).  Also, he notes how many Gen X type churches are almost rootless, “cut off from much of the [historical] church” (p. 29).  Finally, he found the Gen X movement to have “little discussion on the centrality of the cross for forgiveness and the enabling power of grace to live for Jesus” (p. 30).  In other words, he finds the Gen X emphases on mission, obedience, and reaching the culture to be a form of moralism.

Third, Belcher summarizes the Emergent critique of the traditional churches in seven clear points.  Emergents say traditional churches 1) Are captive to Enlightenment rationalism (individualistic/rationalistic – a.k.a. fundamentalistic), 2) Have a narrow view of salvation (individualistic rather than cosmic), 3) Put belief (correct theology) before belonging (membership), 4) Their worship is uncontextualized (i.e. it ignores culture around it), 5) Have ineffective preaching (it is simply a talking head conveying information in a rationalistic way), 6) The traditional church has weak ecclesiology (i.e. is concerned about programs, societies, and form instead of personal discipleship), and 7) Reeks of tribalism (is sectarian, inward focused, and isn’t welcoming of “other” kinds of people) (pp 40-43).  Belcher devotes seven chapters to tackling these seven areas, showing how traditional churches are sometimes guilty of these things.  At the same time he shows how the Emergent alternative often leaves much to be desired.   He posits a “third way” in the bulk of the book.  The reader will have to get the book to see his “third way,” though I may blog on this again later.

This is a great 7 point critique; it really reflects some of my own struggles about “church.”  In fact, as I read Deep Church I wrote many more critiques of both the traditional church and the Emergent church in the margins.   Probably my critiques of the traditional church would outnumber some Emergent lists!  At the same time, I think many of those above objections could be answered by stripping the church of  ”traditionalism” and going back to the good old confessions (even if we have to translate them into modern language).  In other words, though I think those 7 critiques above are valid when it comes to the traditionalism of the church, I don’t think they can be leveled nearly as well at the confessions of the church (whether it be Reformed, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Calvinist Baptist, etc.).   Our practice quite often deviates from our confessions, and we need to be called out for it.

This book is a good one for serious “churchly” Christians to read and discuss.  I’d love to be part of a discussion group going through this book!  I’m grateful Belcher took the years to study and write this book.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

In the Papryi Graecae Magicae (P.G.M) we find a truly unique record into the ancient practices of Greek, Egyptian, Jewish, Gnostic and early Christian magic. Collectively, the P.G.M. refer to a cache of ancient papyri of spells and rituals dating between the 2nd Century B.C.E. and the 5th Century C.E. In them, we find a wide range of magical practices from folkloric remedies and love spells to full-fledged exorcisms, summonings, and elaborate rites of initiation.[1]

Particularly interesting to students of western esoterica is the frequent recurrence of two practical techniques: 1) self-identification with the deity, and 2) the vibratory use of long  “untranslatable” vowel formulas identified as voce magicae or nomina barbara.[2]

Both these techniques remain prominent in the modern currents of western magical traditions under the practice of assuming godforms and the vibration of divine names.[3] Indeed, these practices may be considered universal and likely traced back to the teachings of a primordial tradition preceding all archaeological notions of history, at very least we have early material records of a parallel tradition arising in the east with the vowel mantras of the Vedic schools and practices of becoming the deity during worship.[4] Regarding the voce magicae of the P.G.M specifically, there is a fair amount of historic literature that traces these practices to the rituals and priestly tradition of Ancient Egypt; according to the chroniclers of the ancient world, the priest of the Pharaohs were rumored to perform unparalleled magical acts through invoking the harmonies of the seven vowels.[5]

First origin of my origin, AEHIOYΩ, first beginning of my beginning PPP SSS PHRE, spirit of spirit, the first of the spirit in me, MMM, fire given by god to my mixture of the mixtures in me, the first of the fire in me, EY EIA EE, water of water, the first of the water in me, OOO AAA EEE, earthy substance, the first of the earthy substance in me,  YE YOE…

Magical invocations such as the introductory line of the Mithras Liturgy (P.G.M. IV. 475-829) quoted above drew on the sound of the letters and the sacred science of hermetic vibration to align the practitioner to the metaphysical principles of the operation. Such voce magicae were conceived as the vibrational manifestation of the very principle in question.  In some instances the sounds may have been designed to mimic elements of Nature, such as the sound of wind(i.e. PPP SSS PHRE) or the tune of water (OOO AAA EEE). In others, like the various permutations of the the seven vowels (AEHIOYΩ) and the commonly repeated divine names of IAΩ and IEOU,  the vowel sounds were the magical formula used to invoke the power of the “seven Immortal Gods of the Universe”.[6]

From the writings of Aristotle and Hippocrates we know that as early as the 4th Century B.C.E. the Greek initiates attributed the seven vowels to the seven heavens and planets.[7] Manly P. Hall (1901-1990) in his Secret Teachings of All Ages[8] discusses the correspondences:

The Greek initiates also recognized a fundamental relationship between the individual heavens or spheres of the seven planets, and the seven sacred vowels. The first heaven uttered the sound of the sacred vowel Α (Alpha); the second heaven, the sacred vowel Ε (Epsilon); the third, Η (Eta); the fourth, Ι (Iota); the fifth, Ο (Omicron); the sixth, Υ (Upsilon); and the seventh heaven, the sacred vowel Ω (Omega). When these seven heavens sing together they produce a perfect harmony which ascends as an everlasting praise to the throne of the Creator. (See Irenæus’ Against Heresies.)

However, the actual correspondences used by these initiates were never recorded, so posterity was left playing a guessing game as to which vowel represents which planet.

Considering that Greek astronomy was heavily influenced by the Egyptian and Chaldean astronomers before them, we can safely assume that the planets were arranged in the Chaldean order that predominated the traditional teachings of the ancient world (Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn).[9] We will address the question of whether the order should be taken as ascending or descending shortly. The other assumption taken by most scholars is that the vowels were considered in their alphabetic order, but as Joscelyn Godwin points out a tonal or harmonic order may have been more inline with Pythagorean doctrine of Harmonia. [10]

Hall, while admitting the lack of textual evidence, proposes a Moon-Alpha order based on the alphabetical ordering of the vowels and the Chaldean planets in ascending order from Moon to Saturn.”Although not so stated, it is probable that the planetary heavens are to be considered as ascending in the Pythagorean [Chaldean] order, beginning with the sphere of the moon, which would be the first heaven.”[11] This is the same system proposed by the 18th Century French scholar Abbé Jean Jacques Barthélemy[12] and followed by the majority of vowel-planet correspondence systems .[13]

However, the German occultist and magician Henry Cornelius Agrippa (1486-1535) proposed a different system in his De Occulta Philosophia.[14] Without the textual tradition to preserve the correspondences used by the Greek initiates, Agrippa turned to the Hebrew alphabet and initiatic tradition of the Kabbalah to provide the framework. He had very high regard for the antiquity and symbolism of the Hebrew letters, and in particular of the inherent 3:7:12 division of the alphabet in which (and together with the ten digits) the initiate found the esoteric keys of the universe (see Concerning the Trees). Agrippa’s correspondence was likely influenced by the highly meditative and magical text of the Sefer Yetzirah where the seven Hebrew Double Letters( ת ,ר ,פ , כ ,ד ,ג ,ב) map in their alphabetic order to the seven planets in their descending order of emanation (Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury, Moon). This Saturn-Bayt order is the predominate system of correspondence between the seven Doubles and the seven planets in traditional Kabbalah;[15] and, through applying the same formula (alphabetic letters to descending planets) to the Greek vowels and Chaldean planets, Agrippa arrived at the Saturn-Alpha order .

Regardless of the Alpha orientation (Moon-Alpha or Saturn-Alpha), the Sun and the vowel Iota in both systems remain unchanged. The Sun’s position as the fourth and central planet in the Chaldean order defines it as the central pivot between what modern astronomy understands as the inner planets (Venus, Mercury, Moon/Earth) and outer planets of the solar system (Mars, Jupiter, Saturn) . This Central Principle is precisely what we find expressed in traditional glyph of Sol() as a literal expression of the center point (•) within the circle (O).  This concept is reiterated in philosophical assertions such as found in the Corpus Hermetica, “And round about the Sun, and dependent on the Sun, are the eight spheres…” [16] Whether these esoteric teachings of the Sun-Center were interpreted in terms of a modern heliocentric solar system- though interesting and highly suggestive -  is irrelevant.[17] As we have already discussed in Sun: IGNIS CENTRUM, the initiates into the Mysteries would have seen this as a reference to a metaphysical principle beyond the manifested solar orb and pertaining to the traditional doctrine of the sacred Center and the Divine Seed within. [18]

This brings us to question how the Chaldean order was defined in the first place. Seems strange that we would still entertain a system based on a simplistic geocentric model of the universe. Equally perplexing is how this primitive system could seemingly predict a heliocentric solar system through the elegant symbolism of the Central Principle. The answers lie in how this order was created, or rather discovered. The Chaldean Magi derived this order from their empirical observations of the sidereal cycles of the planets. As such, it is perhaps one of the most pure and unbroken traditions of sacred science as the arrangement was learned from the planetary rhythms themselves.

Seen from our vantage point on Earth, the Moon takes the shortest time to complete a cycle around the zodiac and Saturn takes the longest. The sidereal cycle observed for the Sun is actually  the Earth’s periodic orbit around the Sun and acts as the base rhythm of 1-year (365.25 days) by which we identify the outer and inner planets. For this reason whether we assume a heliocentric or geocentric position the principle of Sun-Center holds true. Thus, from our terrestrial orientation we perceive the universe in the Moon-Alpha direction and the orb of the Sun is the fourth and central planet because it is a reflection of our position on Earth.

We must take a moment to observe  the natural synergy between Moon and Saturn as the Alpha-Omega of the Chaldean planets. This speaks volumes in the language of traditional symbolism where Moon is synonymous with  ‘Life’ and ‘Nature’ . [19] Saturn, on the other hand, has been identified with edge of the heavens and the thresholds of space, time, and timelessness (see The Eternal Chronos). Most humans in antiquity would only experience one or two Saturn cycles in their lifetime and the planet was logically equated with ‘Death’ and the Omega point of the mortal human experience. [20] More importantly, however,  Moon and Saturn in their sidereal cycles share the same numerical rhythm (29.5) but at different magnitudes (days/years). This is a truly remarkable and beautiful manifestation of the Alpha-Omega principle  -  it teaches how Unity can be separated and polarized merely through the perception of space and time.

In the Saturn-Alpha order recorded by Agrippa we find an inversion of the human perspective. The orientation reflects the Alpha and Omega axis upon itself, it switches from the perspective of a human looking out at the Heavens to the Creator overlooking His creation…This orientation is a system the promotes the return to Center as opposed to Moon-Alpha that speaks to movement towards the periphery and circumference of the circle. The return to Center is a descending act related to the “entering the cosmic cave” or the “passage through the underworld” in the mythic narrative of the Solar Hero (Osiris, Dionysus, Mithras, Apollo, Christos, etc.). This chthonic act parallels the initiatic practices of descending into one’s own being in order to awaken the Divine Seed of the Heart.[21] In Traditional schools this has been identified as the principial act of initiation, and according to Julius Evola (1898 – 1974)  this act implied by alchemical aphorism of the “Gold hidden within Saturn” is “one of the first and fundamental operations in the initiatic art:  the transferring of the sense of the Self into the region of the heart.”[22] In the two systems of orientation(Moon-Alpha and Saturn-Alpha) we find insights into two branches of spiritual practice; the former best equated with the path of mysticism and dissolution into the All, and the later to that of initiation and spiritual immortality through Unity with the All.

This inversion is not only referenced in the Mysteries of the Greek and Hebrew Alphabets, but we also find it in the rich symbolic language of the Tarot and in particular the 12th trump- The Hanged Man. There is much to contemplate regarding the abundant alchemical and magical symbolism of the trump, but this is beyond the present scope. At a very topical level what we are presented with is a symbol of the initiate reversing his orientation to the natural world. [23] The inversion takes place in the 12th trump representing the 12 constellations of the zodiac (time) and the 12 edges of the cube (space). In older versions of the card such as Le Pendu in the  Tarot de Marseilles, the cross bar from which the figure hangs is supported by two vertical poles each with six stumps, as if their branches have been cut off – a clear metaphor to breaking free from the 12-pronged structure of the universe. We should also note that this trump precedes the 13th and most misunderstood card, Death. The exoteric and ominous nature of this major arcana is a far cry from the esoteric traditional symbolism as representing the “passage through the underworld” and the metaphorical death preceding initiatic resurrection. [24] Playing on the double meaning of the Greek verb τελευτᾷν (‘to die’ and ‘to be initiated’), Plutarch wrote ” to die is to be initiated into the Greater Mysteries.”[25] What we are referring to is not physical death, but rather a philosophic “Death” pertaining to the orientation of one’s sense of Self away from the limits of physical existence and into the realm of transcendent principle; the inversion of perspective as represented by  Saturn-Alpha and The Hanged Man trump is the necessary stage preceding this Great initiation.

This Alpha=Omega inversion and the doctrine of transcending the space-time dimension is preserved(among many other places) in various Medieval and Renaissance paintings and engravings of the Heavenly Spheres- classified as ‘hermetic’ or ‘alchemical’ in nature. These depict an archetypal Man (often depicted as androgynous to illustrate transcendent Unity) standing atop the earth with his head in the Saturnine heavens. Other variations display the figure standing in the 8th Heaven of the fixed stars above the 7th Heaven of Saturn, or even more reduced versions simply depict the figure standing atop the sphere of the heavens. Regardless of the artistic variations all forms of this symbol share the theme of the philosophic Man-God or Solar Hero triumphing over the material world.[26] Resurrected beyond the confines of space-time and liberated from the karmic cycles of life and death, the Solar Hero now peers through the universe with the eyes of immortality… his orientation is none other than Saturn-Alpha.

While the uninitiated masses made offerings to and worshiped the exoteric face of individual deity(ies) and the Solar Hero(s) of the prevailing mythology in an attempt to gain worldly favors and a rewarding afterlife, the initiates of the Mysteries recognized in these mythological images and storylines symbolic concretions of greater esoteric truths.[27] Under the doctrine of Pythagorean Unity and the divinity of the human soul, the initiates of such traditions sought to achieve apathanatismos (‘deification of the Self’) by aligning themselves with – and becoming – the Solar Hero.[28] This was accomplished by a life-long devotion to the Mysteries and their teachings where the mythological narratives of the Solar Hero were revealed as parallel allegories to the spiritual development of man. These Mysteries were committed to instructing the initiate in the disciplinary techniques and practices to silence the desires of material orientation and to experience the subtle realities through awakening the Divine Seed of the Heart.[29] Via the magical and meditative practices of self-identification with the deity and the vibration of vowel mantras and other voce magicae as preserved in the P.G.M., the initiate learned to transform his/her perspective to one of transcendent Unity (read Alpha = Omega) and elevate their consciousness to a higher ontological level of experience …we may say, that such practices were intended to liberate the initiate from the confines of space-time and to evoke a transformation in the initiate’s sense of Self from mere mortal to living God.

While, at a philosophical level,  Agrippa’s Saturn-Alpha system seems to best align with the traditional doctrine of initiation,  we cannot conclude that it was the system used by the Greek initiates in practice. That the Chaldean order from a descending perspective was used is highly likely due to the importance placed on the doctrine of the Center and the centering implication of Saturn-Alpha, but ordering the vowels in alphabetic order is suspect given the musical nature of the sounds produced.

Perhaps in this light, and for practical application we should not correspond the vowels to their alphabetical order, but rather according to their natural acoustic pitch.[30] This would place the vowels in an empirically derived hierarchy based on the frequency of their pitch, letting the vowel sounds themselves dictate their position, and is very inline with the process used to arrive at the Chaldean ordering of the planets. When in doubt let the universe speak for itself.

We find that when the Greek vowels are arranged in Tonal Order the systems cannot be described as Alpha oriented, since both orientations yield Sun-Alpha. Instead we are presented with Moon-Iota and Saturn-Iota orientations depending on whether the initiatic (or inverse) perspective is taken.

As to which system of correspondence is “correct”, it is impossible to say for sure. They all speak to key universal truths and each is valid in its own right. However, in practice, I strongly suspect that the Tonal Order to the descending planets (Saturn-Iota) best aligns with practices of the Greek initiates, particularly when we consider the symbolism of the planets in light of the seven subtle centers of occult corporeity (i.e. chakras). We must remember that as arrays of principles reflect into different states of subtle existence their ordering tends to change, we see this with the arrangement of the Chaldean planets which yield the Saturn-Alpha or Moon-Alpha systems reproduced above. However, when we consider these in terms of harmonics, and in particular the scale of perfect fifths, the order is mixed and yields the harmony of the spheres manifest as time in the ordering of the week (Saturn, Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus). This was represented by inscribing the seven planets in a circle connected by the Heptagram, each planet links to the third planet from its position resulting in the seven pointed star connecting the planets in their weekly order.

We are left with various gateways to unravel the Mystery of the Vowels and the power of the “seven Immortal Lords of the Universe”. Through the principles of inversion and reflection, the planets and vowels re-orient themselves as they manifest at different ontological levels; and in each manifestation they yield further insights towards the transcendent principles of our universe. Ever so slightly the Veil is parted for those who have the will and desire to Know.

First origin of my origin, AEHIOYΩ…

Notes

1. Hans Dieter Betz (ed). The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation: Including the Demotic Spells (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1992).
2. Laurel Holmstrom. Self-Identification with Deity and Voces Magicae in Ancient Egyptian and Greek Magic
3. See Aleister Crowley. Magick: Book 4, Liber Aba (York Beach, ME: Weiser Books, 1994) and Israel Regardie. The Golden Dawn: The Original Account of the Teachings, Rites & Ceremonies of the Hermetic Order (St. Paul, MN:Llewellyn Publications, 2002[1971]).
4. Julius Evola. The Yoga of Power (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 2005).
5. Joscelyn Godwin.The Mystery of the Seven Vowels (Phanes Press,1991).
6. Hans Dieter Betz (ed). The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation: Including the Demotic Spells (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1992):48-50.
7. Kierren Barry. The Greek Qabalah (York Beach, ME: Weiser Books, 1999):  35 -50.
8. Manly P. Hall. Secret Teachings of All Ages (New York, NE:Tarcher/Penguin, 2003[1928]).
9. Anthony Aveni. Behind the Crystal Ball: Magic, Science and the Occult from Antiquity through the New Age (New York, NY: Crown Publishing, 1996).
10. Joscelyn Godwin.The Mystery of the Seven Vowels(Phanes Press,1991).
11. Manly P. Hall. Secret Teachings of All Ages (New York, NE:Tarcher/Penguin, 2003[1928]).
12. Abbé Jean Jacques Barthélemy. Les voyages du jeune Anarchasis en Gréce(1787)
13. Kierren Barry. The Greek Qabalah (York Beach, ME: Weiser Books, 1999):  35 -50.
14. Henry Cornelius Agrippa.Three Books Of Occult Philosophy. Trans. J. F. Edited by Donald Tyson (St. Paul, MN: Llewellyn, 1993).
15. See table in Concerning the Trees and Aryeh Kaplan’s translation and commentary on the Sefer Yetzirah (York Beach, ME: Weiser Books, 1993)
16. Corpus Hermetica, Libellus XVI.
17. See argument in Rene Schwaller de Lubicz. Sacred Science: The King of Pharaonic Theocracy (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 1982)
18. In particular see René Guénon. Symbols of Sacred Science (Hillsdale, NY: Sophia Perennis, 2004) and Julius Evola. The Hermetic Tradtion:Symbols and Teachings of the Royal Art (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 2005).
19. See Moon: The Hook of Consciousness and Julius Evola. The Hermetic Tradtion:Symbols and Teachings of the Royal Art (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 2005).
20. Anthony Aveni. Behind the Crystal Ball: Magic, Science and the Occult from Antiquity through the New Age (New York, NY: Crown Publishing, 1996).
21. René Guénon. Symbols of Sacred Science (Hillsdale, NY: Sophia Perennis, 2004).
22. Julius Evola. The Hermetic Tradtion:Symbols and Teachings of the Royal Art (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 2005) and quote with original italics from UR Group. Introduction to Magic Rituals and Practical Techniques for the Magus (Rochester, VT; Inner Traditions, 2001): 55
23. See Arthur E. Waite. The Pictorial Key to the Tarot:XII The Hanged Man [1911] and Paul Foster Case. The True and Invisible Rosicrucian Order (York Beach, ME: Weiser Books, 1985).
24. Arthur E. Waite. The Pictorial Key to the Tarot:XII Death [1911].
25. Plutarch. Fragments also see Albert G. Mackey.The Symbolism of Freemasonry (1882).
26. See Joseph Campbell. The Hero’s Journey: Joseph Campbell on His Life and Work, 3rd edition, Phil Cousineau, editor.(Novato, CA: New World Library, 2003). and  Joseph Campbell. The Hero with a Thousand Faces (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008).
27. Manly P. Hall. Secret Teachings of All Ages (New York, NE:Tarcher/Penguin, 2003[1928]).
28. In particular see René Guénon. Symbols of Sacred Science (Hillsdale, NY: Sophia Perennis, 2004) and Julius Evola. The Hermetic Tradtion:Symbols and Teachings of the Royal Art (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 2005).
29. ibid.
30. Joscelyn Godwin.The Mystery of the Seven Vowels (Phanes Press,1991).

Some thoughts pursuant to the discussion we had before Thanksgiving of possible strategies and directions for an ethno-conservative movement (see “A Type of Protest I’d Like to See” and “Non-Radical Revolution and Separation“):

1. A Gramscian strategy of working from the bottom up to leadership positions in our social institutions was suggested. Actually, I have not read Gramsci before, although last week I took a look at some of his letters from prison. At one point he claimed to be reading “a book a day.” I find this enviable. Maybe I need to go to jail. But I don’t think my intellectual vigor matches that of Gramsci.

2. A good case was made for “non-radical revolution,” something I agree must be tried, despite the serious and growing demographic obstacles to such a movement, which at some point threaten to become insurmountable. (Many say they are; but since we have no choice but to live in whatever circumstances are given to us, I wonder if it even matters. And anyway, I remain convinced the problem is largely within our collective spirit. It is not as if we face a genuinely formidable, superior enemy.)

3. My problem with the non-radical approach is that rising to the top in most of the institutions of our society requires the actual promotion of the current liberal agendae of diversity, non-discrimination, globalism, feminism, and the like. So is one supposed to just pretend to accept these things until one reaches the top, and then do an about-face? The case of Lawrence Summers shows that you are not safe at the top. Even the Pope has (or acts as if he has) no real power to oppose Islam. And one cannot really thrive if one has to wear camouflage all the time.

4. But maybe politics (among other fields?) is a special case where, at least in areas with large remaining middle-American conservative constituencies, a skillful figure working at the local level can actually be a leader, channeling the public’s healthy instinct for self-preservation into political form. Tom Tancredo did an admirable job of this and he seems to be evolving into a genuine ethno-conservative leader (were it not so, he would not be consorting with Buchanan). If a Tancredo is doomed to be drummed out of politics then there is little hope in this sort of endeavor, but what if we could get 10 or 20 Tancredos in office in the next decade? That seems possible. Such a coalition could have serious influence on our politics, if not much “power” in the conventional sense.

The point here would not so much be gaining actual legislative power as it would be forcing issues into the public discourse, and providing genuine representation for the interests of heritage Americans.

5. As I suggested in my discussion of “Gay Pride” marches and civilian trials for mass-murdering terrorists, another productive approach is to support single-issue movements in which the opposition’s position is so outrageous that persistent, articulate support of a traditional or conservative position is bound to gain significant public support. Immigration restriction remains the big issue we can’t let go. Anti-jihadism remains a core issue.Traditional marriage, gun rights, food labeling (who the heck got the laws repealed that required disclosure of what country foods come from?), English-as-official-language-movements, and protection of police officers are a few good causes that come to mind. Certain such causes  could be taken over by ethno-conservatives in time, though it’s not possible now.

6. Is there a way to work within the Republican Party for traditionalism? When I see who rises to the top in that party, it seems highly unlikely. But what about at the local level?

7. We must support, quietly, or loudly, the few people and publications who openly advocate race realism. Stand up for those whose livelihood and well-being suffer because of their views – whether they are professional or just inadvertant realists. In general, we should not publicly criticize people who are “to one’s right,” unless they are absolutely over the top. And even then, we must ask whether such criticism might not be more harmful than beneficial to one’s long-term goals. Black people don’t criticize Al Sharpton. Why should we have to apologize for our Al Sharptons? (If there are any.)

8. What role might local, discreet groups who meet in real life for social or activist purposes serve? I originally intended this website to help serve that function, but I confess that I have backed away from it. First, of course there is risk involved in mutual disclosure of identity. Second, the numbers seem too small. Ian Jobling’s White America has a meet-up page and there doesn’t seem to be much happening there, although that could change, and I hope it will. Third, I think meeting needs to have a clear purpose. It would certainly be fun to meet and talk with like-minded people from time to time, and it could be spiritually and intellectually fruitful. However, most of us are probably so busy with our families, jobs, and non-political social lives that it would be hard to make a big commitment to some group of fellow ethno-conservatives. So, what purpose would meeting serve? (This is not a rhetorical, but a genuine question.)

9. Most meaningful political and social activity must be directed towards our own people. Praise and support those of our own who do what’s right (even if they do not welcome our praise and support). Vilify, obstruct, intimidate, trick those of our own who betray us. We have little ability to influence those outside of our ethnic group. We shouldn’t try to court favor with black, brown, yellow, or purple people. Those who offer their respect and goodwill should receive it; those who act as enemies should be treated as such.

The winter will pass, so let’s stay warm, and be careful out there!

Experience dictates that the modern black metal listener is in essence a “hipster”; a self referential, individualist, egocentric and more or less self-pitying individual. Moreover, experience also dictates that the modern and profane black metal musician has more in common with the lowly pop artist than with the principles and individuals that helped to create the original Norwegian black metal movement.

There was once a moment in time when black metal, like all great artistic movements strove to express something eternal, whether that was the paradoxical juxtaposition of beauty and death, the joy in battle and the growth that ensues due to struggle, or the essentially inexpressible infinite cosmos.

One of the more salient features of the nascent black metal scenes was the romantic obsession those involved had with the past. Black metal’s obsession with bygone ages , pointed to a nascent, articulated, although perhaps not fully defined, desire to rediscover traditional knowledge, including the mythology, and the social and traditional norms that defined their venerable, Indo-European culture, namely Norse.

As these individuals invaded the undergrowth of wisdom distilled in the remaining works of  bygone ages, listeners, onlookers and now later historians were and are provided with a glimpse into the workings  of a movement that pre-eminently strove to rediscover lost wisdom and to participate and explore the multifaceted plains of reality, and its highest level therein, namely the Supreme Principle.

This desire to participate in the highest level of reality can be used to shed light on the enigmatic drive to self-imposed anonymity, such that these original European Mystics indeed strove towards. As we traverse the iconography and  interviews, or lack thereof, of the original black metal scene we are forced to recognize the tools by which these individuals imposed anonymity among themselves; one recalls the corpse paint, used primarily although not exclusively to obscure their physical attributes. Indeed, we recall, the use of pseudonym to obscure, nay to eschew their name and ego. Recall lastly, the ambiguous relationship these individuals had with media, in itself the pre-emptive tool for modern ego worship, either non-existent or outright hostile. Regardless of later sensational developments in the scene, the originators reveled in a mystique of anonymity that pointed not to a new marketing gimmick but rather to the participation in a higher principle or reality, from which peek their ego’s and its gratification seemed comic.

The Main purveyors of the early black metal scene, and especially Scandinavian Mystic Varg Vikerness seemed to be in fact consciously aware of this higher reality, from whence all proceeds. Commenting on the “illusory” nature of material reality, and its reliance upon a higher principle for its substantial and formal manifestation, the lyrics of “Lost Wisdom” proclaim:

                 “While we may believe

                        Our World, Our reality

                        To be that is, is but one     

                        Manifestation of the Essence”

Although such an outright recognition of the Supreme Principle is rarely encountered as explicitly in other black metal bands of the time, the anonymity and symbolism utilized by many of the protagonists seems to point to an implicit recognition of a higher principle from whence an expression of anonymity logically follows.

            Rene Guenon teaches us that it is a mere modern deviation from the supreme principle and traditional doctrine that has led to current notions of crass individualism, ego worship and “originality”. Current artists are very nearly obsessed with having works attributed to their ego, and such modern profanities have even led scholars on an endless search to provide the public, and novelty seekers, with the names of even those artists who completed medieval masterpieces. Of course these artists, due to their participation in the higher Principle from which all things emanate, had not the hubris to associate their works solely with their own ego. Likewise, a search for traditional knowledge and the participation of and recognition of a supreme principle led to a general anonymity amongst the original black metal adherents from Norway. This participation precludes the notion of anonymity described as “infra-human”, implying the dissolution of a particular in a crowd, but entails rather a participation in a higher supra-individual order. Consider the words of Rene Guenon:

“The being that has attained a supra-individual state is by that fact alone, released from all the limiting conditions of individuality, that is to say it is beyond determinations of name and form that constitute the essence and the substance of its individuality as such; thus it is truly anonymous because in it the ‘ego’ has effaced itself and disappeared completely before the’Self’”

-The Reign of Quantity and The Signs of the Time- 

The key to understanding what has been said above is to recognize that in this case the Ego has effaced itself in the face of the higher Principle from which it has emanated, nay from which all things, states and possibilities emanate, while in itself remaining unaffected and unchanged by this manifestation. It is the ego that produces the “subject vs object” sensation and produces the dichotomy of “I and Thou”. However, participation in the Supreme Principle implies a transformation, in which one becomes consciously aware that All of Existence is indeed one, and that All must fundamentally be attributed to It, the Supreme Principle. Indeed, all dichotomies will have been overcome, the barriers of subject versus object will have been overcome, and one will attain immortality. Hence, in aspiring to this reality and perhaps participating in it, Black Metal musicians were quick to live among the shadows, obscure, nameless, formless, recognizing themselves and their works as naught but one of the infinite possibilities inherent in the supreme principle. It should therefore come as no surprise in connection with these thoughts that certain musicians chose such pseudonym’s as if to reflect cosmic principles, representative of the venerable Indo-European tradition of the Norsemen. 

“Brahman cannot be realizedby those who are subject to greed, fear and anger.

Brahman cannot be realized by those who are subject to the pride of name and fame” 

-Tejobindu Upanishad-

Delving deep into primordial traditions long forgotten, those Scandinavian mystics seem to have uncovered long forgotten mystic truths, hidden within the depths of the most primordial of the Indo-European traditions- Hinduism. It should come as no surprise to those familiar with Indo-European traditions that a study of, and adherence to strict Traditional principles, a fascination with the Norse Legends combined with some occult influences, however badly understood, would lead the black metal warrior down the road of ‘Self’ discovery”. It is well known that Odin himself is etymologically derived from Gwoden, another name for Indra, a God venerated as the leader of God’s in the Hindu Pantheon. With the inherent and complimentary relationship between these two Indo European worldviews, namely Hinduism and Norse Mythology established it is fair to conclude that both contain within themselves the seed for mystical realization, or a knowledge of the “essence”. Of necessity, we turn to Hinduism, a more complete metaphysical system to fill in some of the blanks as to what Vikerness and company were aspiring to during the apex of the black metal phenomenon.

According to Hindu tradition the purpose of life is to become united with the ‘Self’, Brahman, the Supreme Principle, that which is enshrined in the hearts of all, according to ones station in life and capacity to do so. Again, this is the same Supreme Principle alluded to above, from which participation in, a true supra-individual anonymity necessarily springs. Although the original black metal purveyors may not have been consciously aware of the heights to which they were ascending, nor of the full traditional implications of what they were doing, it comes as no surprise that when re-discovering their traditional legends that they would inadvertently ascribe to the goal of, and rediscover some of the more outstanding tenants of a more primordial, and complete Indo-European tradition, Hinduism, whose purpose again is to help facilitate the discovery of ‘Self’ knowledge, participation therein and the realization that all proceeds from the Supreme Principle.

“…and through the successives stages, through discipline and wisdom one becomes…Immortal”

Îl citesc pe Evola nu pentru angajamentele lui la extrema dreaptă fascistă ci pentru punctul de vedere, din perspectiva metafizicianului, în ceea ce priveşte sexul. Evola, ca toţi tradiţionaliştii, crede în existenţa unei tradiţii primordiale, superioare, esoterice. Dar, tradiţia pentru Evola este deasupra şi împotrivă culturii moderne. Am citit cartea fără să fiu de acord cu multe lucruri din cele prezentate de autor. Am vrut însă să văd, până la capăt, viziunea metafizică a italianului cu privire la existenţa sexelor omeneşti. 

„…sexul, înainte şi dincolo de trup, există în suflet şi într-o anumită măsură în spiritul însuşi. Eşti bărbat sau femeie în interior înainte de a fi astfel şi exterior: calitatea masculină sau feminină primordială pătrunde şi impregnează întreaga fiinţă, aşa cum o culoare pătrunde un lichid”.

“Nu existăm decât ca bărbaţi sau ca femei. Punctul acesta de vedere va fi apărat împotriva tuturor acelora care astăzi susţin că a fi bărbat sau femeie este ceva accidental şi secundar în raport cu existenţa în general ca fiinţe umane.” 

De la bun început se vede hotărârea cu care filozoful respinge toate teoriile moderne care au, într-un fel sau altul, legătură cu diferenţierea sexelor în cadrul speciei umane. Pentru el darwinismul sau psihanaliza sunt tâmpenii crase. Cât despre ideea egalităţii bărbatului cu femeia, aceasta îi produce italianului o adevărată alergie. Pentru el este o idee periculoasă, diabolică, iar egalizarea asta ideologică ar însemna ştergerea unor diferenţe fără de care atracţia dintre sexe nu ar exista. Cu alte cuvinte  nu există o esenţă umană pe care să o poţi gândi făcând abstracţie de sexul fiinţei pe care o ai în vedere. Evola nu se  poate abţine să nu afirme lipsurile sau constituenţii negativi ai femeii. Pe baza vorbelor lui Weininger, un tânăr furios abia ieşit din adolescenţă, Evola afirmă că femeia, ca nonfiinţă, nu posedă memorie, logică şi nici etică. Mai mult „nu cunoaşte nici un  imperativ etic; nu cunoaşte, cu atât mai puţin, determinarea, acţiunea imperioasă şi rigoarea unei funcţii intelectuale a judecăţii, care prezintă un caracter evident masculin”.   

Citeam undeva un text de Ana Taroveanu (Psihologia masculină şi psihologia feminină la Julius Evola : o critică) în care aceasta spunea că, citindu-l pe Evola, îţi dai seama că femeia nu posedă nimic. Ea este doar natură. Iar a fi doar natură reprezintă „nefiinţa”, nimicul. Însă a avea natură , memorie, etică, logică, accesul la transcendent, conexarea la noumen cu ajutorul Eu-lui noumenal, toate astea reprezintă esenţa masculină aflată în bărbat. Iată o logică absurdă plină de orgoliile dihotomice ale primului şi secundului. În orice domeniu bărbatul caracterizează, cataloghează, numeşte, defineşte femeia iar Evola nu scăpa acestui tipar. Tot ce scrie Evola despre femei mi se pare suspect.

În concepţia lui Evola superioritatea dragostei se recunoaşte după sterilitatea ei. Adică actul sexual nu este un act bilogic ci o tensiune spirituală. Nu faci sex ca să te multiplici. Cu alte cuvinte nu ne preocupă nici voluptatea şi nici procreaţia ci intrarea în contact cu energiile primordiale ale universului.   

Până la urmă toate astea sunt o prelungirea a unei viziuni religioase, o viziune proprie, o viziune spirituală cu care Evola îşi apăra înverşunat teoria.

Să treacă oare lumea noastră printr-un proces de involuţie aşa cum spune Fausto Antonini( cel care scrie introducerea cărţii) încât Evola să contrapună un om al tradiţiei intangibile unei catastrofe biologice şi psihice? Nu cred nici în ruptul capului! Mulţi se panichează şi încep să deplângă vechile vremi la orice schimbare de optică. Ca şi când ar trebui să trăim veşnic în marea tradiţie clasică şi preclasică fără să schimbăm nimic în viaţă noastră. A te apropia de o civilizaţie a oamenilor, nu a femeilor şi a bărbaţilor închipuiţi de Evola, mie mi se pare o evoluţie bună.

Din perspectiva mistică, cred că lucrarea lui Evola este o lectură interesantă, o carte scrisă bine. Totusi cartea are un caracter subiectiv şi unidimensional ea discreditând, aşa cum am mai spus, unele teorii şi perspective moderne. Nu este o cercetare sociologică, antropologică a comportamentelor sexuale ale fiinţelor ci derivă dintr-o tradiţie perpetuată de-a lungul timpului care nu încetează să perpetueze la rândul ei. E o interpretare tradiţionalistă, gnostică, mistică şi magică a relaţiilor tradiţionale dintre femei şi bărbaţi, reprezintă, în fond, o paradigmă, o mentalitate destul de greu de schimbat.

Contextualization: Are you balanced?

Moving forward, I am not sure if there is a more important issue for evangelicals than proper contextualization (assuming we are holding to orthodox Christianity). Contextualization is the art of explaining the Bible (especially the Gospel) without sacrificing the message, to people with varying cultural distance everywhere in ways they understand.  We are always contextualizing; under/over-contextualization is still contextualization.  We speak differently to children than adults; Westerners, than the Near East, than the Far East.  Contextualization is far too big a topic for one post, so this post serves the purpose of barely introducing the subject.

There are two obvious dangers in contextualization:  Under-contextualization and Over-contextualization:

Under-contextualization [fundamentalism, traditionalism]

Under-contextualization occurs when we ignore real cultural differences that are barriers to understanding the Gospel.  The fundamentalists were notorious under-contextualizers.  The main mistake that most under-contextualizers make is stating that all contextualization is wrong.  The problem with this kind of statement is that we can never avoid contextualization.  Language is the carrier of culture.  If I speak in English (or any other language), I am contextualizing.  It is ethnocentric of the highest order to think that when you speak all people should be able to understand you.

Over-contextualization [syncretism]

I think it was Mike Glodo, who said that,

Missionaries are the best heretics.

His point is that as missionaries are advancing the Gospel in culturally distant places, they face difficult decisions on how to far to go to explain the Christian message.  Do you allow ancestor worship in Japan?  Do you allow polygamy?  Do you worship at the mosque as a follower of Allah and Isa (Jesus) in a Muslim country? Do you think there are believers in the Roman Catholic church, and if so, do you partner with them in Italy?

The great danger of over-contextualization is compromise.  We compromise the Gospel when we marry it to some other worldview/faith that is against the Gospel.  It is inappropriate for us to marry Christianity to modernism (as evangelicals have done for some time), post-modernism (as the emergent church encourages), or any religion Islam/Voodoo/Oprah-Tolle.  This is syncretism.

Most of us will not be facing questions of how far to go to evangelize Muslims in the middle East but we do need to think through how far is inappropriate in trying to seek the lost here in America.  On this matter, Gregg Allison (Southern Seminary) has a more substantive paper addressing contextualization in the emergent church that is worth reading.

Proper contextualization

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart was famously quoted as saying (in reference to defining hard-core pornography),

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so.  But I know it when I see it…

I cannot define proper contextualization, but I know it when I see it.  Proper contextualization is an art and not a science.  Proper contextualization requires spiritual maturity.

If you were to spend time listening/watching a single treatment of the matter, I would highly commend D.A. Carson’s speech on contextualization in this video from closing message from The Gospel Coalition, 2009.  You can tell he has really though through the subject in his speech and that is likely do to his thoughtful book, Christ and Culture Revisited.  Here is a snarky little snippet from the Gospel Coalition message:

Paul refuses to circumcise Titus, even when it was demanded by many in the Jerusalem crowd, not because it didn’t matter to them, but because it mattered so much that if he acquiesced, he would have been giving the impression that faith in Jesus is not enough for salvation: one has to become a Jew first, before one can become a Christian. That would jeopardize the exclusive sufficiency of Jesus.  To create a contemporary analogy: If I’m called to preach the gospel among a lot of people who are cultural teetotallers, I’ll give up alcohol for the sake of the gospel. But if they start saying, “You cannot be a Christian and drink alcohol,” I’ll reply, “Pass the port” or “I’ll think I’ll have a glass of Beaujolais with my meal.” Paul is flexible and therefore prepared to circumcise Timothy when the exclusive sufficiency of Christ is not at stake and when a little cultural accommodation will advance the gospel; he is rigidly inflexible and therefore refuses to circumcise Titus when people are saying that Gentiles must be circumcised and become Jews to accept the Jewish Messiah.

The operative question is what is the proper relationship of the church to the world.  Ray Pennings has a nice summary of the four Reformed positions on the churches relationship to the world:

So to summarize the discussion within Reformed circles today: The neocalvinist says the fundamental presuppositions underlying the debate need to be changed if we are to have meaningful engagement. The two kingdom perspective responds that it won’t happen; when we try to engage in discussion, we end up calling things Christian that really aren’t, resulting in pride and a misrepresentation of the gospel. The neopuritans say that that is why we should avoid a systemic approach; we should focus more on the individual needs of our neighbors and show them, both in ministries of mercy as well as by positive examples, that faith makes a difference. The Old Calvinists say that in all of this activity, we are losing our focus and getting dirty as we dig around in the garbage cans of culture to retrieve a penny or two of value from the bottom. We and our culture need heart-surgery, not band-aids.

Here are a handful of other helpful articles/links:  Jonathan Dodson, and Hunter Beaumont.

Moving forward, my encouragement to evangelicalism is to think through this relationship thoughtfully.  This will require balance, which is the final subject in this series of posts on Evangelicalism Moving Forward.

I like to think that what I write in this blog might have the effect of influencing a person or two of liberal, or mainstream conservative, persuasion by helping them to see some of the non-politically-correct truth of what is happening to their country. Yet I recognize that in reality most of my readers are already sympathetic to my perspective. Consequently, much of my writing reads like part of a conversation among like-minded people. That has its own legitimate function, of course. We traditional patriots (if I may be so daring as to apply such an epithet to such a shadowy group and further to include myself in such honorable company) need the encouragement, the intellectual stimulation, even the entertainment that largely anonymous Internet formats currently provide better than any other. And if we keep striking flint to steel we may eventually get fire. So be it. For now.

Yet my mind returns again and again to the question of what I can do to contribute to the cause of my people, or, if that sounds grandiose, to at least be part of a functioning movement. The traditionalist conservative, or ethno-conservative, or nationalist, movement has as yet no real power in our society. In America we have scarcely even begun to define ourselves as a people in any other than universalist, liberal terms. The most “conservative” among us are unable to explain why it would be wrong to reduce whites to 1% of the population, though even the most liberal of us must see that there would be something wrong with this. There seems to be no base on which to stand to fight. I myself work for a liberal bureaucratic institution and would quickly become persona non grata were my views to become known to my co-workers. (I do anticipate taking that risk when the time is right, but that does not seem to be now.) Perhaps it might be better to enter a more “conservative” field, where this would be less of a problem. But lo, I look all around and there is nothing but liberal bureaucracy in every area of society, even in the military, even in the churches – and it’s getting worse all the time. What to do? Sometimes I fantasize about getting together with some friends and forming an Amish type of community separate from the larger society. But that hardly seems practical either.

Oh, sure, I send money to a few causes, call my elected representatives once in a while, write letters, things like that. And these are worthwhile, even essential, things to do. But there is no power in them. The powers that be allow the expression of opinion. Almost on a daily basis letters to the editor appear in the local paper expressing solid, middle-American values. But this opinion is carefully filtered out from the actual decision-making bodies, leaving only lifeless printed words that are remembered by none.

And after all, expressing opinion is nothing in itself. For in truth – as some have said – what is going on is not an argument but a fight. A war, which requires the use of force. I am not talking, of course, literally about battalions of troops shooting each other, but I am talking about pressure, coercion, compulsion, strategy, propaganda, and even (as Mohammed knew well) deceit.

We have very little force at our command except for a few fine, brave thinkers. And, on the other hand, all that remains of the spirit of our nation in the hearts of the people.

Now, our society is so rotten, so corrupt and weak in so many ways, that there ought to be numerous weaknesses that we traditionalists can exploit. The very passivity, lack of clear thinking, lack of loyalty, and venality that lead our politicians and businessmen to roll over and surrender to invaders who are largely inferior in ability to their hosts (or victims) and without exception dependent on the largesse of those hosts, ought to be exploitable by those of us who are tired of living under the conditions they set.

Yet for me, a clear path for action has yet to emerge.

One small thought I’d like to throw out today concerns the possibility of protests. Conservatives, of course, don’t much like protesting. Left-wing theatrics, George Bush paper-mache dolls on stilts, stupid chanted slogans, are embarrassing to us. Mob activity is repugnant, the antithesis of the type of politics practiced by a free people.

And yet…we have reached the point where things so outrageous and abominable as to have been inconceivable only a few years ago are being presented to us as normal and beyond question. (Read any issue of the New York Times for examples. Or, on second thought, don’t.) In some cases, I believe the supporters of these causes and activities have become careless, assuming they have already won a struggle that is still far from decided. Why not figure out some areas where selective protest might catch its targets off guard?

For instance, Gay Pride parades. These have become elevated to mainstream events in recent years. I witnessed one in Columbus, Ohio, a few years ago. At first glance, they look like a normal sort of summer festival – floats, music, a big turnout, neighbors on their porches watching the show while enjoying drinks from coolers. Then you look more closely and you see the aged transvestites, the flashes of nudity, the free packets of sexual lubricant tossed from a float, and you begin to feel ill. Then you see the small children who are being exposed to the filth and start to feel that a crime is taking place.

Then you see that Chase Bank (or some such pillar of the community) is a sponsor of the event.

Could a group of citizens not organize themselves to follow these events and, without actual violence, disrupt them? Even if the event could not actually be stopped, it would surely put a crimp on their fun, would it not? One would, of course, have to attune the signs, slogans, and actions to the values of real, average citizens. None of this “God Hates Fags” stuff which one suspects is actually planted by the opposition to convince the public that only foaming-at-the-mouth “haters” oppose these events.

Would this not possibly embarrass Chase Bank just a bit? Are the homosexualists really that powerful and do they really enjoy that much support? Or is their “pride” more like an inflated soap bubble that could be easily pricked? And, if the government or police go too far in supporting them, won’t this undermine them in the eyes of much of their constituency? Yeah, we know about free speech and all, but are you actually arresting people who don’t want this in their neighborhood?

Then there are the atrocities carried out by Muslims on U.S. soil and the craven and dead response of the media and other authorities, up to and including the current President of the United States. The demonic fiend and enemy alien who probably planned the mass slaughter of Americans in Washington and New York is going to be given a civilian trial in New York with our best lawyers arguing that evidence against him gained by “torture” cannot be admitted? Given a platform to terrorize Americans and rally the Muslim enemy through grandiose speeches given while sporting the bin Laden lookalike stinking beard and turban we’ve allowed him to assume as his “human right”? The type of non-human being who makes me realize that even my deep opposition to lynching and torture has exceptions?

Why not have a large and continually replenished group of dignified (but obtrusive) protesters with signs saying “Death to Jihadist Murderers”? Why not set up some of the same outside Fort Hood or wherever the “fair trial” of that creature is supposed to take place? There would need to be enough present for a long enough time that even if the media chose to ignore them they would be seen by thousands of people in person. Again, if such protesters are arrested or forced to move, what will that do to the credibility of the authorities?

Well, I probably should apologize for raising the grand question of What To Do and then offering just another limited, conventional sort of action, of the sort which is indeed being conducted from time to time. But my point is that we need to examine the structure of our liberal society as a whole and identify the weaknesses that might be exploited to undermine it – and the areas (for instance, at present, the Internet) that can still serve as bases for strategic actions.

Since hostile readers will have little to say on this question, I invite my friendly readers to share their insights on this question.

by Matthew Raley

The ten commandments get plenty of evangelical attention if they are engraved on courthouses. But tucked away in Exodus 20, not so much. The reason, I think, has to do with evangelicals’ informal hermeneutic: the parts of the Bible that are “culturally specific” do not apply today because “culture has changed.” Like other people with the issue of ethics, evangelicals preserve their wiggle-room.

So, some parts of the Decalogue fare better than others. The command against murder is still cited, as is the command against bearing false witness. The commands against coveting or breaking the Sabbath are usually ignored. The other commands receive lip-service, like the command against making idols, but only scant consideration.

The command to honor your father and your mother is in this last category. Groups of children are guaranteed to hear that they should obey their parents, and they will also hear Paul’s comment about an attached promise in Ephesians 6. But there’s a little detail you’ve probably never heard — just a bit of trivia, I suppose, but I find such arcane matters entertaining. The original audience for this command was composed chiefly of adults.

The idea was that every grown-up would honor his father, and not just while his father lived, but also in memory. In this way, children would be taught by example, not just homily, that an elder is to be treated with reverence, deference, and attention.

I bring this up because I’m thinking through the political alliance evangelicals have maintained with the conservative movement. I’ve noted that there are three strains that constitute the movement, and that each one needs fresh biblical evaluation so that evangelicals can reform their view of citizenship. We’ve looked at the Bible’s broad teaching about the state, and about the concern of the libertarian strain of conservatism for property, work, and profit.

A second strain of conservatism is traditionalist. As I’ve already written, these conservatives are primarily concerned with the preservation of inherited ways of life, and of the union of generations.

This kind of conservatism grew out of biblical soil.

Consider what it meant practically for an Israelite man to honor his parents. In the first place, the God his father and mother worshiped would remain his God. The fidelity his parents maintained — fidelity to God, to each other sexually, to truthfulness and the rights of others to their lives and property — he would continue to foster in his own heart and in the hearts of his children. Doing so, he would ensure “that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.”

In other words, the command to honor father and mother is the command to pass on the Decalogue itself, and to reform practices that have departed from it, as an expression of familial loyalty. It is a command to guard the comprehensive inheritance you have received, materially and spiritually. It creates a society that measures itself from the past forward, not from the future backward.

There is no way to keep this command on the surface of your life. It can’t be done with postmodern irony. It can only be kept from the depths of your heart.

Further, this is not a “culturally specific” item that can be discarded. It is essential to the ethical world of the Bible. A society that has “outgrown” this command is a society we must defy.

Here’s what bothers me.

Evangelicals have devoted vast resources to political battles for conservative policies. They have poured money into state referenda, gaining majorities on councils, and electing candidates for national office, all with a rhetoric that calls for “traditional values.”

But if you look at the local churches evangelicals have built, you find no emphasis on honoring your father and your mother — the molten core of  biblical civics.

Indeed, evangelical churches have transformed into youth-oriented, age-denigrating activity centers. Bill Hybels and his ilk have spent the last three decades railing against “dead traditions” and effacing the inheritance of symbols, songs, and doctrine from public worship. Most churches will not consider pastoral candidates over 50 anymore. I know a man in his 60s who has led international organizations, whose churches have grown, and who is wiser than ever, but whose resume cannot attract attention. The Christian psychology industry, when it is not busy advising divorce, is telling adults to cut off their parents.

In politics, traditional rhetoric. At church, wisdom-deleting practice. I am not denying the many complexities of staying flexible in a changing society, but the degree of evangelical refusal to pay honor to elders is hypocrisy — or lunacy.

For churches truly to advance traditionalism, they would have to teach and practice the 5th commandment. And that would turn their operations upside down. Instead of age-segregation, they would mix generations. Instead of dumbing down their preaching, they would restore accurate measures of greatness — the measures of biblical history, not youthful fantasy.

The Bible teaches that the ethics of the people rule the nation. And the fruits of evangelical rule are . . . ?

American society, like other Western societies, is clearly in trouble. We see not only a decline in our physical and cultural environment, but, increasingly, the emergence of actual barbarism and savagery within our borders, as events like the gang rape that took place outside a California high school show us on almost a daily basis. But what can we do? Liberals pin their hopes on progressive social reform, carried out by the government and other institutions. Libertarians, a minority, see protecting individual freedom as key. Conservatives call for a return to traditional values and social norms. I hold that the conservative position (perhaps with certain elements of the other two) offers the only hope for saving these United States. But “traditional values” are not simply principles to be followed, voluntarily, by individuals. They must be embodied in the framework of a larger society. For Westerners, at least, that larger society is the nation, and the culture and society of that nation is its civilization.

That last sentence might sound like the sort of dull truism that schoolchildren used to be taught to write in composition class, but the shocking fact is that the idea of civilization, once taken for granted, has entirely dropped out from our discourse. This is a natural consequence of the domination of the values of equality and nondiscrimination. For the idea of civilization necessarily implies the existence of its opposite, non-civilization, the primitive, savage, or barbaric. Western men today are carefully trained to avoid judging any group or society in such terms, because this implies that some groups or societies are superior to others, and that the white Westerner making such judgments might see his own group as superior. Today, to see Western culture as superior is seen not only as morally contemptible but as nearly self-evidently false as the statement “two plus two equals five.”

Thus the idea of American civilization, which once was an academic subject in itself and which formed the framework for any discussion of the history, literature, and culture of the United States, has vanished from our natural life. The defenders of that civilization withered under the sneering voices of people like Gandhi, who is supposed to have said, when asked what he thought of Western civilization, “I think it would be a good idea.”

I think that American civilization would be a very good idea and I would like us to reclaim the concept. Of course, our kindred Western nations need to do the same. We might start by fleshing out the concept of civilization a little.

My 1985 American Heritage Dictionary defines civilization as follows: “1. An advanced stage of development in the arts and sciences accompanied by corresponding social, political, and cultural complexity. 2. The type of culture and society developed by a particular nation or region or in a particular epoch: the civilization of ancient Rome.” I suppose that the word is still used occasionally in the second sense, but probably not in the first, unless with a meaning so broad that it applies to all human societies that exist today. Somalis have SUVs, therefore they are civilized.

A complete set of the Encyclopedia Americana, 1951 edition, is one of the under-appreciated treasures of my parents’ home that I intend to claim for myself someday. It is, come to think of it, a product of American civilization. Interestingly, its article on “Civilization” is fully titled “CIVILIZATION, History of. Pre-Christian,” with no corresponding article on Christian civilization, which I suppose is covered under another heading. The article gives an impressively expansive enumeration of the components of civilization, focusing on Europe and the Near East. It includes things like: food-getting; agriculture; fire; mining; textile-making; architecture; art; music; clothing; cooking; government; commerce; transportation; science (beginning with astronomy); medicine; and literacy. Always amazing is how much people in very ancient times were able to accomplish in these areas.

What is common to these definitions of civilization is the linkage between material developments and spiritual elevation. This comes out in a careful reading of the Americana article. For example, the bow and arrow gave man “an entirely new dominance over his world and lifted his food-getting enterprises and himself above the level of the brute as no other invention had done up to that time.” With the invention of agriculture, man “had to stay in a place long enough to plant and to reap and this acquired a sense of ownership.” Also, “Without the use of fire, man could not have risen above the lowest depths of savagery and barbarism.” For “When he took the fire and put it on a crude stone hearth just within the hut, it meant a better home and the gathering about the hearth marks the beginning of the family circle with all that that has meant.” Textiles, building, music, and other arts are linked with spiritual elevation; for instance, “The wonderful sculpture which filled the Grecian world before and after B.C. 500 must have done much to awaken in the people a love of the beautiful and a distaste for whatever was ugly.”

Almost poignant, in an era when over half of marriages end in divorce, is the discussion of the family, which should give us pause to think:

No single fact has been more influential in the process of civilization than the rise of the family. Respect, consideration for one another, chastity, obedience, honor, sacrificing love, virtues altogether fundamental to civilization, are its direct product.

On government, the writer notes of the laws of Hammurabi and others:

These laws are attempts to compel a certain orderliness, and decency and honor in human activities and relationships. This growing custom of making a man face the wrong of his acts and inflicting a penalty therefore, compelled him to see the need of taking some thought as to the character and consequences of his deeds.

Of religion, the writer says that it “has played its part in helping and hindering and shaping civilization,” and interestingly gives as the first example an example of a Neanderthal youth buried with a food offering. I read a similar story as a boy. The writer sees a positive progression from primitive religions in which man “worships gods which are usually fearful and many, and believes that these gods cause all things to happen,” to Judaism and Christianity.

The civilizing value of the idea of a God as a God of Righteousness proclaimed by the Hebrew prophets has even yet not been fully realized, and when under Josiah social justice was made virtually a religion, religion was destined to play a greater part in lifting civilization to higher levels.

One does sense in the use of words like “social justice” an assumption that the goal of civilization is equality. One also senses a materialistic bias, with material developments seeming to lead to spiritual ones instead of vice-versa. Both tendencies are problematic. One lesson people living in the 21st century ought to have learned by now is that material and spiritual progress are not inevitably correlated, though it may have been possible to believe in 1951 that they were. Our material progress continues, at least in some areas, but our spiritual and social decline is striking. And, as with the recording of rapes on cell phones, technology can be used in service of outright savagery.

Still, the view of civilization presented in the Americana is helpful in reminding us of what we are trying to preserve – civilization as a “total package,” a society of people with a history and way of life that took eons to develop and needs to be maintained and protected. The value of civilization, indeed, the inseparability of our civilization from everything we love and are, was self-evident to all Westerners until recent times. Recapturing the idea can help us focus our efforts to save the thing.

În anul 1513 vedea lumina zilei „Principele” lui Nicolo Machiavelli, lucrare politică care, peste o perioadă timp, va prezenta un adevărat manifest al „pragmatismului politic” şi una din expresiile de bază ale gândirii politice moderne.  Mai mult decât atât, „Principele” va deveni un adevărat prototip al politicianul occidental modern.

Între 1516-1521, într-un principat ortodox în partea de sud-est a continentului european, vede lumina zilei o lucrare care abordează o viziune absolut opusă celei înaintate de Machiavelli. Din păcate, aceasta  va trece neobservată mult timp chiar de poporul căreia i-a fost lăsată drept moştenire.

Este vorba de „Învăţăturile lui Neagoe Basarab către fiul său Teodosie”, un adevărat testament politic lăsat urmaşilor, un tratat diplomatic şi o scriere care prezintă o viziune integră asupra fenomenului politic din perspectiva spaţiului ortodox.

Surprinde nu doar faptul că ambele lucrări apar în aceeaşi perioadă istorică, dar şi faptul că subiectele discutate sunt aproximativ aceleaşi: relaţiile monarhului cu supuşii săi, diplomaţia, etica, războiul.

Momentul în care aceste două lucrări văd lumina zilei, devine un punct de separaţie dintre cele două lumi radical diferite şi opuse ca accepţiune a lumii: civilizaţia apuseană şi civilizaţia ortodoxă. Europa occidentală, care se află într-un continuu proces de renegare a propriilor valori, moment istoric care a primit numele de „renaştere”, şi societatea românească statornică, continuatoarea tradiţiei imperiale bizantine.

Diferenţa de viziuni devine radicală prin modul în care sunt tratate subiectele. Machiavelli este îmbibat de anticlericalism retrograd şi dispreţ faţă de orice norme morale, politica fiind percepută de acesta ca un lucru care există pentru sine însuşi. Urmărind încercările lui Machiavelli de a justifica necesitatea depăşirii normelor morale de dragul obţinerii puterii, observăm că în lucrarea acestuia nu regăsim un scop final al politicii, pe altarul căreia au loc sacrificiile.

Totuşi, care este scopul final al politicii?

Din păcate, autorul italian nu oferă un răspuns la această întrebare. Puterea „principelui” există şi nu are nevoie de nici un fel de explicaţii, pentru Machiavelli aceasta reprezintă o valoare în sine. Politica este percepută ca o zeitate păgână, în cinstea căreia, pornind de la ideea că puterea este unicul element care oferă un sens existenţei, principele este obligat să jertfească orice. Iată de ce, în acest caz, scopul scuză mijloacele, scopul fiind, fireşte, puterea politică.

Machiavelli caută să şteargă orice diferenţă dintre „bine” şi „rău”, declarând că atunci când este vorba de obţinerea şi păstrarea puterii, totul este permis: „…să nu-i pese dacă va merita faima rea a acelor păcate fără de care i-ar fi greu să păstreze statul; căci dacă cercetăm lucrurile cu atenţie, vom observa că unele scopuri care ni se arată a fi virtuoase, ne-ar duce la pieire dacă le urmărim, în timp ce altele, care ni se par a fi rele, ne fac să dobândim, prin atingerea lor, şi siguranţa şi bunăstarea”.

Două elemente sunt fundamentale, în opinia lui Machiavelli, pentru cucerirea şi menţinerea puterii politice: puterea şi viclenia. Puterea, simbolizată de leu, este cea care intervine în momentul în care nu este suficientă autoritatea legii, iar vulpea este politicianul viclean care caută să ocolească toate legile, inclusiv şi cele morale pentru a ajunge la ceea ce şi-a propus.

Machiavelli ajunge a institui un adevărat cult al vicleniei (de aici şi noţiunea de „machiavellism”), pentru că „…cei care procedează numai în felul leului nu se pricep deloc la arta guvernării”. Politicianul machiavellic este cel care nu cunoaşte ce înseamnă onoarea cuvântului dat: „…un stăpânitor înţelept  nu poate şi nici nu trebuie să-şi ţină cuvântul atunci când acesta s-ar întoarce împotriva lui şi când motivele care l-au făcut să promită un lucru au încetat de a mai exista”, iar  mila, fidelitatea, integritatea de caracter şi credinţa în Dumnezeu sunt doar instrumente pentru înşelarea celor din jur.

„Principele – vulpe” trebuie să-şi menţină o mască falsă pentru a-şi ascunde adevăratele scopuri: „…dar trebuie să ştii să-ţi ascunzi în tot felul această natură de vulpe, să te prefaci şi să nu te dai pe faţă, deoarece oamenii sunt atât de naivi şi se supun atât de uşor nevoilor prezente, încât acela care înşală va găsi întotdeauna pe unul care să se lase înşelat”.

Oamenii din natură sunt răi, consideră Machiavelli, respectiv, unica soluţie contra “răului oamenilor” este puterea, o divinitate însărcinată cu protecţia tuturor. În contextul acestei idei, normele morale, valorile supreme, în cazul în care nu au calitatea de instrumente pentru cucerirea puterii, îşi pierd orice importanţă.

În tabăra opusă se află „principele ortodox”, domnitorul Neagoe Basarab, pentru care politica nu este un lucru care există de la sine şi pentru sine, ci urmăreşte nemijlocit mântuirea domnitorului şi supuşilor săi. Acesta este raţionamentul politicii în spaţiul civilizaţiei ortodoxe. Aici politica devine o pregătire pentru viaţa de dincolo, nu o construcţie a raiului pe pământ. Desigur, o astfel de logică este de neconceput în lumea catolico-protestantă, unde omul este stăpân absolut asupra vieţii sale şi are deplinătate absolută să aleagă între „bine” şi „rău”.

Spre deosebire de principele lui Machiavelli, virtuţile şi izbânzile domnitorului nu se datorează unor calităţi personale, ci voinţei lui Dumnezeu. Acest lucru nu înseamnă deloc faptul că ortodoxul se lasă pradă fatalismului. Pentru un domnitor ortodox toate eşecurile şi victoriile personale, şi în acelaşi timp ale ţării întregi, sunt rodul vieţii sale duhovniceşti. Dumnezeu nu este un păpuşar, iar omul nu este o paiaţă neputincioasă, însă separarea omului de Dumnezeu înseamnă golirea omului de esenţă, slăbirea interioară care conduce inevitabil la eşecuri.

Izvorul puterii politice nu se află în calităţile personale şi nici în voinţa oamenilor, ci în voinţa şi calitatea lui Dumnezeu. Doar în faţa Lui, voievodul urmează să răspundă pentru modul în care a păstorit supuşii săi: „…că nu te-au ales, nici nu te-au unsu oamenii spre domnie, ci Dumnezeu te-au ales şi te-au unsu şi aceluia plăcere să-i faci”.  Să observăm că această viziune se îndepărtează atât de despotismul asiatic, cât şi de democratismul liberal.

Milostenia devine unul dintre elementele de căpetenie pe care trebuie să le urmărească domnitorul. Însă nu o milostenie de dragul menţinerii popularităţii în rândul populaţiei, aşa cum se întâmpla în Roma antică sau în Europa occidentală. Domnitorul nu oferă „pâine şi circ”, ci o milostenie sinceră, pentru iertarea păcatelor sale. Pomana nu este un simplu act de caritate, ci o faptă, o acţiune mistică, însoţită de post, rugăciune, smerenie şi răbdare. În acelaşi timp, spune Neagoe Basarab, domnitorul are trei lucruri în faţă: „ceasul morţii”, „vămile cele înfricoşate” şi judecata de apoi. Anume aceste trei elemente îl fac pe monarh să-şi păstreze verticalitatea morală şi duhovnicească.

Domnitorul ortodox – erou cu înalte calităţi morale

Un capitol separat prezintă relaţia dintre domnitor şi boieri. Neagoe Basarab, vorbind metaforic, prezintă boierii drept o grădină, iar voievodul – gardul care apără grădina de primejdii: „Că eu, feţii mei, am o grădină, cu darul şi cu ajutoriul lui Dumnezeu între multele mele osteninţe şi nevoinţe, o am făcut şi o am crescut frumos şi bine. Grădina aceia şi creştirile cele frumoase dentr-însa suntu boiarii miei cei mari şi cinstiţi. Şi am îngrădit cu gard ca cu un zid de piatră şi grădina mea o am apărat, ca nu cumva să îndrăznească cineva să între într-însă şi să strice ceva den ostenelele mele”. De fapt, aici este vorba de sistemul politic al cărui garant este domnitorul, pentru că în mare parte, păstrarea suveranităţii ţărilor româneşti este legată nemijlocit de puterea boierimii. Chiar şi Machiavelli observă, în „Principele”, că un stat care are o nobilime puternică este uşor de cucerit dar greu de stăpânit.  Acolo unde această pătură a fost slabită în favoarea unui despot, cum ar fi exemplu Serbiei, sau nu a reuşit să se cristalizeze, ţările şi-au pierdut independenţa transformându-se în paşalâcuri turceşti.

Ataşamentul boierilor faţă de domnitor depinde de ataşamentul domnitorului faţă de boier. În măsura în care aceste două componente ale puterii politice ştiau să se respecte şi să se completeze reciproc, depindea şi soarta ţării. Iată de ce Neagoe Basarab se adresează fiului său cu următoarele cuvinte: „Iar acum, fătul mieu, eu te las să fii gard grădinii mele şi să o păzeşti, cum am păzitu şi eu. Că dacă o vei păzi şi vei fi gardul împrejurat de piatră, cum am fost şi eu, deacii ei cum cugetă să-şi verse sângele şi să-şi pue capetele pentru mine, aşa-şi vor vărsa sângele şi-şi vor pune capetele pentru tine – sau pentru fieştecare domn care va face şi va păzi aceste învăţături ale mele – şi niciodată nu vor da spatele vrăjmaşilor voştri”.

Dacă la Machiavelli principele îşi menţine autoritatea în faţa supuşilor prin cruzime, domnitorul îşi câştigă simpatia prin milostenie: „…slugile tale care-ţi vor greşi, nu le tăia pentru cuvintele oamenilor, nici îl băga în foc, ci-i iartă greşala, măcar de ţi-ar fi greşit, şi-l învaţă. Cândai doar s-ar întoarce, să fie ca alte slugi, care-ţi vor sluji cu dreptate. Iar de nu să vor întoarce, eşti volnic să-l tai, ca şi pre pomu sterpu. Însă iată ce te învăţu: să nu fie adeseori păharul tău plinu de sânge de omu, că acel sânge, care vei tu să verşi făr de milă, vei da seama de dânsul înaintea lui Dumnezeu”.

O altă logică a lui Neagoe Basarab, care aparent răstoarnă ordinea socială a Evului Mediu, ar fi putut şoca în acea perioadă mentalitatea occidentalului machiavellic cu sânge albastru: „Şi de va fi harnicu unul din cei săraci decât unul den feciorii de boiari sau decât o rudă de ale voastre, voi să nu daţi acelora cinstea şi boeriia, în făţărnicie; ce să o daţi aceluia mai sărac deacă iaste vrednic şi harnic şi-şi va păzi dregătoria cu cinste. Că mai bun îţi iaste săracul cu cinste decât boiarul cu ocară”.

Calitatea morală a persoanei este aceea la care atrage cea mai mare atenţie Neagoe Basarab, rezervând un întreg capitol modului în care domnitorul trebuie să se comporte la masă, fragment care este destul de interesant şi util, dar pe care totuşi îl vom trece cu vederea din motive de lipsă a spaţiului.

La subiectul războaielor, la Machiavelli găsim un spirit războinic, dornic de cuceriri. În opoziţie cu acesta, Neagoe Basarab se prezintă ca o fire diplomatică şi pacifistă. În cazul unei ameninţări cu invazia străină, acesta sfătuieşte să se răscumpere de la păgâni pacea, iar în cazul în care aceştia vor dori totuşi să vină cu războiul, domnitorul să nu îndrăznească să părăsească ţara pentru că, mărturiseşte Neagoe Basarab: „…şi eu însumi am fost pribeag, pentr-aceia vă spui că iaste trai şi hrană cu nevoe pribegiia, şi eşti de toţi oamenii dosădit, încă şi copii cei mici, şi de carii suntu mai răi. Pentru-aceia să nu faci aşa. Că mai bună iaste moartea cu cinste, decât viaţa cu amar şi cu ocară. Nu fireţi ca pasărea ceia ce să cheamă cucu, care-şi dă oaolă dă le clocescu alte păsări şi-i scot pui, ci fiţi ca şoimul şi vă păziţi cuibul vostru”.

În acelaşi timp, nu ne poate lăsa indiferenţi îndemnul la luptă al domnitorului român, în cazul în care ţara o cere:

„…să-ţi rădici gândul şi mintea la cer, să-ţi pogoare şi să-ţi fie Dumnezeu într-ajutor. Iar tu să mergi dreptu faţă la faţă spre vrăjmaşii tăi, fără nici o frică; iar cări vor fi ei mulţi, nimic să nu te înfricoşăzi, nici să te îndoeşti. Că omul viteazu şi războinic nu se spare de oameni cei mulţi; ci cum risipeşte un leu o cireadă de cerbi, şi cum omoară un lup o turmă de oi cât de mare şi cum rashiră un glonţu de tun multe cete de ostaşi, nu căci este el mic, ci căci vine cu mare rane şi cumplire, pentru-aceia răshiră şi răsipeşte multe cete de oameni, aşa şi omul viteaz şi bărbat şi hrăbor nu se înfricoşează de oameni mulţi. Că omului viteaz toţi oamenii îi sunt într-ajutor, iar omului fricos toţi oamenii şi suntu duşmani, şi încă de ai săi iaste gonit şi batjocorit şi hulit”.

Din câte vedem, gândurile lui Neagoe Basarab sunt pline de realism, izvorât din momentul istoric care dicta împrejurările de atunci şi experienţele de viaţă ale domnitorului, dar în acelaşi timp păstrează spiritul eroic pierdut de Europa în epoca renaşterii. Bineînţeles, „Învăţăturile” nu reprezintă o viziune personală a lui Neagoe Basarab, ci un manifest ideologic al civilizaţiei în sânul căreia acesta s-a născut, manifest al cărui idei şi principii s-au pierdut în urma procesului de formare şi modernizare al statului român şi victoria „Principelui” lui Nicolo Machiavelli.

Generaţiei de astăzi îi revine sarcina de a reînvia, de a scoate din cămara istoriei valorile autentice româneşti pe care civilizaţia occidentală cu o mare insistenţă încearcă să le arunce în lada de gunoi, înlocuindu-le cu un surogat pe care elita modernă românească îl numeşte cu perversitate „cultura română”.

Canonizarea, la 26 septembrie 2009, a lui Neagoe Basarab de către Biserica Ortodoxă Română este un semn dat de sus poporului român.

În vremurile de pe urmă, domnitorul se întoarce pentru a spulbera dominaţia „Princepelui”, a nemerniciei, a nedreptăţii şi a politicianismului. Nouă nu ne rămâne decât să-l primim.

Sfinte domnitor Neagoe Basarab, roagă-te pentru noi!

[Those who], “driven by desire, consumed by the thirst of desire, burned by the fever of desire, delight in desire,” are like those lepers,
their bodies covered with sores, ulcerated. eaten by worms, who, in scratching their sores and scorching their limbs, feel a morbid delight.

But one who frees himself from leprosy,feels cured, healthy, and independent, “master of where he would go”; this man would
then understand “according to reality” the morbid delight of the leper, and should anyone attempt to drag him by force toward the fire in which he formerly found delight, he would struggle in every manner possible to withdraw his body.

Majjhima Nikaya , 25

2015740 จารีตนิยม การปฏิวัติ และการผนึกกำลังในกัมพูชา Traditionalism, Revolution, And Consolidation In Cambodia

ความขัดแย้งระหว่างจารีตนิยมกับความเป็นสมัยใหม่ในการเมืองภายในกัมพูชา การเมืองในช่วงสงครามเย็นและการเปลี่ยนแปลงที่ตามมา การปฏิวัติและการปกครองโดยกลุ่มเขมรแดง การเมืองเวียดนามในกัมพูชา การปฏิวัติและพัฒนาการสู่ความเป็นเอกราช

(Conflicts between traditionalism and modernity in Cambodian internal politics; politics during the Cold War and its aftermath; revolution and government under the Khmer Rouge; Vietnamese politics within Cambodia; revolution and development of independence movements.)

(2015740 จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย)

Modern tidsuppfattning är linjär (vi utgår här ifrån hur man ser på tid när det gäller sådant som mänslighetens utveckling, bortse från rumtid). Romarriket föll, därefter kom den mörka medeltiden, renässansen, upplysningen och vårt moderna samhälle.

Traditionellt har människan istället sett på tiden som cyklisk. I forna Indien var tiden uppdelad i fyra definierade tidsåldrar – yugor (Satya Yuga, Treta Yuga, Dvapara Yuga och Kali Yuga). Enligt hinduismen degenereras människan i takt med att tiden rör sig genom dessa yugor. Till slut nås Kali Yuga (demonen Kalis, dvs kaosets tidsålder) som sedan ändas genom en kataklysm där Vishnus 10:e avatar Kalki sluter cykeln som åter når Satya Yuga.

Intressant är att den cykliska tidsuppfattningen även följde med till Europa. I grekisk mytologi hade tiderna istället namn efter metaller. Guldåldern följdes av silver-, brons- och järnåldern. Samma tidsuppfattning fanns i romarriket och i forna mellanöstern.

Även i de traditionella nordiska samhällena tycks den cykliska tidsuppfattningen ha funnits. Som de flesta vet är nedskrivna källor från denna tid ytterst sparsamma, men i Völuspá (Valans spådom) används ordet gullaldr för att beskriva tiden efter kataklysmen (Ragnarök). Tidsåldern innan Ragnarök (vår tidsålder) benämns vargtid.

Vad är då Kali Yuga? Vad kännetecknar den? För att besvara den frågon måste vi gå till gamla källor. I detta fallet Vishnu Purana (kommentarer inom paranteser är mina, kommentarer inom klamrar är författaren till boken jag hämtat utdragen ifrån, se källa längst ner) :

“Outcastes and barbarians will be masters of the banks of the Indus, Darvika, the Chandrabhaga and Kashmir. These will all be contemporary rulers reigning over the earth: kings of violent temper [...]They will seize upon the property of their subjects; they will be of limited power and will for the most part rapidly rise and fall; their lives will be short, their desires insatiable, and they will display but little piety. The people of various countries intermingling with them will follow their example [...]The prevailing caste will be the Shudra (4:e kasten, står för fysiskt arbete och jordelivet) [...] Vaisyas (3:e kasten, förenklat köpmannakasten) will abandon agriculture and commerce and gain a livelihood by servitude or the exercise of mechanical arts [proletarization and industrialization] [...] Kshyatrias (2:a kasten, krigarkasten) instead of protecting will plunder their subjects: and under the pretext of levying customs will rob merchants of their property [crisis of capitalism and of private property; socialization, nationalization, and
communism]

Wealth [inner] and piety [following one's dharma] will decrease day by day until the whole world will be wholly depraved. Then property alone will confer rank [the quantity of dollars - economic classes]; wealth [material] will be the only source of devotion; passion will be the sole bond of union between the sexes; falsehood will be the only means of success in
litigation.

Earth will be venerated but for its mineral treasures [unscrupulous exploitation of the soil, demise of the cult of the earth] [...] Brahmanical clothes will constitute a Brahman (1:a kasten, prästämbetet) [...] weakness will be the cause of dependence [cowardice, death of fides and honor in the modern political forms] [...] simple ablution
[devoid of the power of the true rite] will be purification [can there really be anything more in the alleged salvation procured in the Christian sacraments?]
In the Kali age men corrupted by unbelievers…will say: “Of what authority are the Vedas? What are gods or Brahmans? [...]“ Observance of caste, order and institutes [traditional] will not prevail in the Kali age. Marriages in this age will not be conformable to the ritual, nor will the rules which connect the preceptor and his disciple be in force [...] A regenerated man will be initiated in any way whatever [democracy applied to the spiritual plain] and such acts of penance as may be performed will be unattended by any results [this refers to a "humanistic" and conformist religion] [...] all orders of life will be common
alike to all persons [...] He who gives away much money will be the master of men and family descent will no longer be a title of supremacy [the end of traditional nobility, advent of bourgeoisie, plutocracy] [...]Men will fix their desires upon riches, even though dishonestly acquired [... ]Men of all degrees will conceit themselves to be equal with Brahmans [the prevarication and presumption of the intellectuals and modern culture] [...] The people will be almost always in dread of death and apprehensive of scarcity; and will hence ever be watching the appearances of the sky [the meaning of the religious
and superstitious residues typical of modern masses] [...]

The women will pay no attention to the commands of their husbands or parents [...] They will be selfish, abject and slatternly;
they will be scolds and liars; they will be indecent and immoral in their conduct and will ever attach themselves to dissolute men [...] Men having deviated into heresy, iniquity will flourish, and the duration of life will therefore decrease.

Slutligen:

“When the practices taught by the Vedas and the institutes of law shall nearly have ceased, and the close of the Kali age shall be nigh, a portion of that devine being who exists of his own spiritual nature in the character of Brahma, and who is the beginning and the end, and who comprehends all things, shall descend upon the earth [... ]He will then reestablish righteousness upon earth; and the minds of those who live at the end of the Kali age shall be awakened, and shall be pellucid as crystal. The men who are thus changed by virtue of that peculiar time shall be the seeds of [new] human beings, and shall give birth to a race who shall follow the laws of the Satya age, or age of purity [primordial age].

Källa: Vishnu Purana genom Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World

Bible Journey – Day 14

A Different Kind of Covenant

Hebrews 8-9

“Look, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will complete a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. “It will not be like the covenant that I made with their fathers…

When he speaks of a new covenant, he makes the first obsolete. Now what is growing obsolete and aging is about to disappear. Now the first covenant, in fact, had regulations for worship and its earthly sanctuary.

(Heb 8:8-9; 8:13-9:1 NET.)

Okay, I could get in trouble for this one, but I might as well be as brave as my friends (and erstwhile mentors, whether they know it or not!) Patrick and Keith.

Hebrews 8-9 is some of the most brilliant exposition ever written of the meaning of the coming of the Christ in light of the whole story of Israel. It’s offensive to religious people and just plain dumb to the non-religious and the pagan. This gospel is not about going to the right place and doing the right set of stuff. It is about dedication to the cause of a guy that looks like a total failure – a joke!

Every other religion has detailed instructions for how to worship.

The Christian Scriptures don’t even describe an entire worship assembly!

The world wants a hero: a good-looking, strong, charismatic person who sails to the top of all the popularity structures! Power, Fame, Sexuality – if you can win at all those games, the world will worship you.

The Christ died the most shameful death imaginable – naked public execution – slaughtered by the most powerful, popular, sexually attractive person in the Greco-Roman world, the mighty Caesar. His own friends abandoned him. No monuments were built to him. He was celibate and quite possibly plain or even ugly (Check Isaiah 53).

His commands? Follow me. Live like me. Die like me. Love like me. KNOW me. In Him, King and Kingdom are perfectly united — where He is, the Kingdom is. This is a different kind of religion – not based on a checklist of right doctrines or riding the coattails of a powerful icon. Rather, it is about believing – against everything your gut says – that this one man knew what He was talking about and that his way of living and dying is the real way to live. TRUST him. Defect from serving yourself and the rulers and systems of this world, pledge your loyalty to Him, and then start DOING it.

He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. If we die with Him, we’ll be raised like Him.

This is a different kind of covenant, and I’m not fighting about the old kind anymore.

in HIS love,

nick

Individul si devenirea lumii_de Julius Evola (DESCARCĂ)

Julius Evola (n. 19 mai 1898 – d. 11 iunie 1974) a fost un publicist şi filosof politic italian, apropiat de dreapta radicală europeană. A fost un autor pe cît de prolific şi strălucit pe atît de controversat. Principalele sale lucrări Revolta contra lumii moderne (Rivolta contro il mondo moderno, 1934), Oamenii printre ruine (Gli uomini e le rovine, 1953), Fascismul (Il Fascismo, 1964) sînt traduse în toate limbile de circulaţie internaţională. În perioada postbelică a fost marcat de ezoterism, manifestînd un interes aparte pentru mistica medievală germană şi pentru curentele filosofico-religioase orientale.

Domnia cantitatii si semnele vremurilor de Rene Guenon Humanitas_1995 (DESCARCĂ)

Traducere de FLORIN MIHĂESCU şi DAN STANCA

RENE GUENON s-a născut la Blois, în 1886; în pe­rioada 1909-1912 ia contact cu doctrinele orientale a căror coerenţă şi unitate de principii cu creştinismul va încerca să o pună în evidenţă pentru a putea trezi în Occident forţele capabile să se opună decăderii acestuia, în 1928, afectat de moartea soţiei sale, dar ţi de neînţe­legerea cu care fusese primit de către diferitele medii franceze efortul său de a resuscita spiritul tradiţional, Guenon părăseşte Franţa şi se stabileşte, în 1930, la Cairo, unde se va căsători cu o tânără musulmană. în toată această perioadă va continua să scrie în limba fran­ceză şi să publice în Franţa; se sfârşeşte din viaţă în 1951. A întreţinut o vastă corespondenţă şi cu trei gânditori români: Vasile Lovinescu, Marc-Mihail Avramescu şi Mihai Vâlsan.

LUCRĂRI: Jntroduction gdnerale в l’e”tude des doc-trines hindoues (1921), Orient et Occident (1924), L’Homme et son devenir selon le Vedвnta (1925), L’Esote’risme de Dante (1925), Le Roi du Monde (1927), Autorite spirituelle et pouvoir temporel (1929), La Crise du Monde monderne (1931), Le Symbolisme de la Croix (1931), Les Etats multiples de l’Etre (1932), La meta-physique orientale (1939), Le Regne de la Quantite et les Signes des Temps (1945), La Grande Triade (1946), Apergus sur l’Initiation (1946), Les Principes du Calcul inflnitisimal (1946). Postum au apărut: Initiation et rea-lisation spirituelle (1952), Apergus sur l’esote’risme chretien (1954), Symboles fondamentaux de la science sacree (1962), Formes traditionnelles et cycles cosmi-ques (1970), Etudes sur l’hindouisme(1970), Etudes sur la franc-magonnerie et le compagnonnage (1970), s.a.

To see Paul Simon and raise him nine years, when I think back on all the horseshit I learned in Government K-12 Death Camps and Rape-Rooms of the Soul,*

*Ur-shit #1, to which all flies succeeding swarm: Obedience.

it’s a wonder my daily fantasies of setting all of them, from Ketchikan to Keokuk to Key West, to dynamite, stayed fantasies: Mamas and Papas, from Monday, Monday to Freaky Friday, don’t let your babies step down to be schoolkids; if I had it to do over again, I’d have left school and home alike at 16 (repeal child-labor laws, as I wished even then, and I’d have left far sooner still) and declined college in any form ever after. But then, I saw through the Amerikan Nightmare and its tear-welling hand-over-heart promises of the Shit at the End of the Rainbow when I was about 5 and began to notice that all politicians lie (it’s in the job description) in the course of their daily murderous rounds, and haven’t looked back since, except when the flashing lights were behind me, and a quick turnoff over the next hill enabling me after acceleration to avoid a ticket was ahead of me…

Confessions of a home-schooler

Call us crackpots, but our kids spend their days at beaches and museums, not in school

[tip: The American Conservative: Home schooling is still seen by many as the domain of the hippie Left and Christian Right. But parents of all backgrounds are starting to wonder whether mass schooling, public or private, is right for their children.]

The previous sermon posted on this blog, based on selected verses from Mark 7, dealt in part with the matter of tradition in the church.  The current edition of the Worship the Lord newsletter, published by the Commission on Worship of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, also deals with the matter of tradition from a Lutheran and pastoral perspective.  As an expansion of the discussion of tradition that was first raised in the Mark 7 sermon, I’d like to share excerpts of the Worship the Lord article, written by James Tiefel, professor of worship and homiletics at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary.  Click here to see the entire article.

When it comes to public worship, tradition carries some heavy baggage. Tradition is what the Jews embraced when they criticized and rejected Jesus. Tradition was partially the basis for the philosophy Paul identified as “hollow and deceptive” in his letter to the Colossians. Along with papal degrees, tradition is the source of Rome’s confusion over the free gospel. Tradition in congregations often inhibits necessary change and even spiritual growth. For some of us, the concept of tradition in worship leaves a bad taste on the tongue.

For others tradition in worship doesn’t have a bad reputation at all. In fact, traditional worship practices are exactly what some people are looking for these days – and I’m thinking of more than the traditional Lord’s Prayer. Some younger Christians and many new Christians seem comfortable with ancient practices a previous generation would not have tolerated. The sixteenth century worship customs of the Lutheran confessors are eliciting the kind of enthusiasm they didn’t enjoy a half century ago.

The Spirit’s most common references to tradition have more to do with traditionalism. Similar to ceremonialism or formalism, it’s going through the form of worship without a heart that trusts in worship’s focus. Seeing the same trait in God’s people that Isaiah saw, Jesus quoted the prophet: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me” (Matthew 15:8). Old and New Testament writers often criticized this tragic flaw in the people of Israel. It’s the fault that lay behind Jesus’ words about whitewashed tombs (Matthew 23).

The Spirit never inspired specific instructions about the value or use of traditional worship practices. But the people the Spirit called, gathered, enlightened, and sanctified demonstrate an obvious interest in customs that edified their ancestors. The exiles in Babylon knew better than to re-establish the temple’s sacrificial rites in a foreign land, but they reviewed the temple rituals and remembered the promises they foreshadowed. They sang the psalms appointed for temple worship even after they returned to their homeland and gathered in their synagogues. They celebrated Passover in their homes.

Although Jesus’ first followers sometimes struggled to understand their freedom from the Old Testament ceremonies, they worked through difficult issues (with guidance from the apostles, especially Paul) and came to rejoice in the fulfillment of the promises rather than in the promises’ liturgical symbols and shadows. But even with freedom a sensitive issue and even as they abandoned customs that had been at the heart of the old covenant (e.g., circumcision), they continued to follow the traditional pattern of worship they inherited from the synagogue – a pattern that forms our service of the Word to this day.

Although the Spirit does not speak specifically to the concept of tradition in worship, the Spirit’s people had no apparent interest in moving away from all the customs their ancestors had found edifying for faith. As they came to understand the concept of freedom, they also learned to know the difference between the peril of traditionalism and the value of tradition. They came to disdain the former. It is not an interpretive leap, however, to suggest that the early Church came to see the worship customs of their ancestors in light of these words: “Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith” (Hebrews 13:7).

Luther’s perspective on the tradition concept wasn’t unlike that of the first believers, and he articulated it clearly and concisely. He had experienced firsthand the horrors of traditionalism, perhaps, in early life, even to the loss of his faith. Once he came to understand the gospel, however, he was able to put tradition into perspective. He came to see ancient worship practices not as burdens to afflict faith, but as blessings to aid faith. Luther wasn’t oblivious to what the Roman Church had done to the historic rites; he wrote about the “prattling and the rattling” and the “wretched accretions” that had become part of the liturgy over the centuries. He called the canon of the mass (the central text of the communion rite) “that abominable concoction drawn from everyone’s sewer and cesspool.” At the same time he wasn’t willing to abandon an order of service that had “genuine Christian beginnings.” His objective was not “to do away with the service, but to restore it again to its rightful use.”

Luther’s thinking about retaining the historic Christian rites was influenced by his concerns for laypeople who would have problems adjusting to new orders of service. But his perspective was far broader. He valued the unifying nature of the ancient orders because they protected believers from “the fickle and fastidious spirits who rush in like unclean swine without faith or reason, and who delight only in novelty and tire of it as quickly.” Luther also knew liturgical history and practice, and he respected the voices of the ancient church.

Luther’s concept of tradition in worship? Everything about his perspective flows from his confidence in the gospel. He certainly doesn’t accept traditions as though he were a slave to them, but he doesn’t carelessly discount them, either. He is respectful of the Church’s ancient voice, but willing to fine-tune; grateful for old customs, but appreciative of new forms.

It’s difficult to separate the concept of tradition from the personal attitudes of the pastors and laypeople who approach it. Some find safety in traditional worship forms; others feel shackled by them. But discerning parish leaders need to approach this issue with a certain detached objectivity and put personal feelings aside.

Those who have seen the abuse of tradition need to stop encouraging us to abandon traditional worship forms. They need to help us get our hands around a better perspective, one we’ve reviewed here in the practices of the early church and the writings of Luther (and found also among the Lutheran confessors). The ancients have something to tell us about customs that have value for faith. They sifted through and assessed the legacy they received from their fathers, just as we must do. They discarded and adjusted, and so must we. But they began the process with respect and love for the one, holy, Christian and apostolic Church. They did not consider themselves uniquely qualified to abandon customs believers had found edifying for a thousand years. They did not assume that old was invariably ineffective and new was bound to be better, just as they did not imagine that old was perfect and new unacceptable. They built on the experience of the past and moved confidently into the future.

 

Så var kyrkovalet över och Socialdemokraterna var valets stora vinnare, de som har förstört kyrkan och gjort kyrkan populär, där homosexuella får gifta sig och där man gömmer människor från världens alla hörn, där man spottar på gud och kyrkans traditionella kristna värderingar.

Även om Socialdemokraterna ökade minskade med drygt 5000 röster från kyrkovalet 2005, så fick det ihop 71 mandat som de även fick 2005. Sverigedemokraterna ökade med drygt 7000 röster och fick 7 mandater, även om jag inte ser någonstans där Sverigedemokraterna har något intresse för kyrkan, Sverigedemokraterna kommer alltid ses som enfrågeparti och jag tänker absolut inte rösta på sådana ateister och låtsas nationalister.

Jag röstade själv inte för jag är inte medlem i låtsaskyrkan, hade jag varit medlem så hade jag lagt min röst på Frimodig kyrka, som tycker att kyrkan ska vara en kyrka, där äktenskapet är mellan en kvinna och en man, som det har varit i alla tider. Sen tycker jag inte att kyrkan ska domineras av politiska partier.

David appeals to MacIntyre to raise a really interesting question:

What is your assessment of faith as the starting point of tradition constituted inquiry as understood by MacIntyre? This is accepting the standards of argument, explanation, justification internal to and partially constitutive of the extended argument that constitutes what MacIntyre calls a tradition. In this case, such faith is NOT meant simply to preserve your tradition (particularly not as currently constituted). The view is that one isn’t really part of a tradition unless one is engaged in questioning and improving the assumptions, standards and positions of the tradition by entering the ongoing conflicts and debates within the tradition. On this conception the whole point of this “faith” is testing it to see if its claims to truth can be rationally vindicated. Now, MacIntyre has a view of rational vindication that is controversial; I just point out here that his view of rational vindication is that it is more and other than defending the claims of a tradition according to terms of rational justification acceptable to it. MacIntyre claims that one tradition can defend its claims according to its terms such that its claims are shown to be vindicated over the claims of a rival tradition on the terms of rational justification of that rival tradition.

I’ll note here that engaging in such tradition constituted inquiry entails taking up at some point or other a position of faith in some other senses that you object to – in particular, it requires one to believe on authority without full rational vindication of those claims to authority. But it requires this as a precondition to putting those claims of authority to the question to see if they are rationally vindicatable. You might argue that one can put those claims to the question without taking up a position of provisional trust, but is doing so any more objectionable than accepting beliefs on intuition then testing them to see if they are rationally vindicatable?

Do you have epistemological objections to MacIntyre’s basic account? Or are you fine with his view of justification, but hold that no believer’s claims ever are (or could be?) rationally vindicated in this way.

And then in a brief clarification of the above:

One clarification: My question in the last line is ambiguous. What I meant to ask was whether you thought the faith of any RELIGIOUS believer never is (or never could be) rationally vindicated in the way I’ve outlined.

I think the process that you outline is how all thinking happens.  None of us think in vacuums, we are all prepared for independent thought by first being initiated both implicitly and explicitly into numerous interlocking traditions bequeathed to us by our culture as our overall tradition.  Those of us in liberal societies have the advantage of being shaped not only by different sub-traditions but by competing, antagonistic traditions and counter-cultures which destabilize our overall tradition and individuals’ understandings of it in a radical way.  The Enlightenment and the Middle Ages do battle probably within every Western soul in one way or another, so far are the reaches of both our rationalist and fideist traditions.

(And, yes, I consider the Middle Ages fideistic even though the word is anachronistic—the Scholastics’ deference to authority and their willingness to posit a God who had mysteries beyond our comprehension and who could radically alter the universe by his omnipotence to the complete frustration of reason were tactics to perpetuate a subordination of reason to faith.  The Enlightenment’s major achievement was to overthrow this kind of God and these authoritarian attitudes and clear the way for investigation that could get somewhere and get somewhere new.  I exposit the argument for this thesis of Blumenberg’s in my contribution to the new collection, Rethinking Secularism: Philosophy and the Prophecy of a Secular Age.)

But, back to the main questions of David’s comment:  I think that we all think from within traditions.  And that in contemporary liberal societies we have an incredible advantage in assessing multiple competing traditions because we live within multiple ones at once.  Until I was 21 I understood myself as only a devout Christian but there were so many competing frameworks in place so that when I began to investigate the foundations of my faith, I could genuinely move within alternative traditions.  They were already a part of me, even though I was explicitly centering my identity and prioritizing my thought around the Christian tradition.  That ability to alternate between perspectives—what happens when I shift my center to my secular, rationalist influences?  what happens when I shift to a Calvinist view of the world?  what happens when I shift to my low church Armenian view of the world?  what happens when I adopt post-modern/anti-realist/deconstructive priorities?  I could shift between authorities and frameworks and test them by seeing how they thrived or withered when tested within each other.  I could take each one and see how relatively satisfying they accounted for the whole of my experience, from all my rational notions of what evidence or logic required from theories, etc.

And, yes, in adopting different perspectives you at least provisionally adopt authorities.  Even a lifelong atheist enters hypothetically into the authority of the Bible as part of assessing it.  When an atheist says, “If this book were true, the implications of it are that God would be genocidal and deeply immoral,” he is adopting the authority of the text provisionally, saying what if it were an authority, what would be the implications about reality?  That may be only a provisional thought-experiment.  There may be richer epistemic possibilities for really living within the viewpoint.  So, to a certain extent, actually keeping on the glasses of a different system of thought, standing from its vantage point and seeing what kind of perspective it offers in a range of matters—even ones not seemingly related to the central issues—can provide a quantitatively more thorough investigation of the worth of a claimed source of authoritative theories.  But even without really trying on being a Christian, one can hypothetically and provisionally adopt the ideas and investigate their implications.

There are problems though.  Faith traditions in their origins and in their fundamental natures resist intermixing with other traditions (unless they have some built-in way for accommodating them into their own order).  Religions are forced to accommodate secularism, when given free reign they try to infuse and delimit all other aspects of life.  They are themselves the principles of traditionalism that aid social cohesion and serve as the primary vehicle for tradition transmission across generations. We must be able, as you say, to work within our tradition’s resources to criticize it.  We cannot work from without all traditions.  Closed societies limit the resources for critiquing their traditions because they shut out as much as possible the influence of competing developed outlooks.  In increasingly liberal societies there are increasingly multiple possibilities for alternating between traditions to assess them and criticize (or vindicate) them better.

The problem with faith is that it requires more than just rational provisional trust in authorities, but instead it goes so far as to be a volitional commitment to authoritative beliefs and/or institutions who have, by virtue of their assumed religious authority itself, the ability to put an absolute brake on one’s own reason and ability to demand explanations. The stronger the nature of religious faith the more it binds you to ancient superstitions, to irrational beliefs which must be accepted by volitional commitment in the face of even overwhelming counter-evidence, and to habits of final deference to traditional authorities.  Even as there is indeed genuine room to reimagine the tradition’s received symbols, religious faith allows authoritative texts and/or living authorities who can squelch a debate or otherwise decide it without a full rational justification.

If faith is interpreted as entirely provisional and open to change, then it’s not faith we’re discussing but simply rational, changeable trust.  Faith, to have any significant meaning distinct from trust on this score has to signify the commitment to believe the propositions or at minimum to maintain allegiance to the mythic symbols, rituals, and institutions of the traditions or the word is meaningless.  And insofar as there are authoritarian sources (be they sacred texts, living prophets, a complicated thousands of years old tradition) which can put a brake on one’s reasoning, they are agents of irrationalism that close the avenues of inquiry off.  Insofar as they are provisional and open to rejection of key “faith tenets” like the divinity of Christ or even, at the extreme end, the possible rejection of Christ as a valuable non-literal symbol, then they are traditions but not ones demanding faith anymore.

So, in short, faith in its essence is the principle of ossification of tradition and the volitional binding of trust and personal commitment even against reason and evidence.  It is the element of a tradition which rejects flirting with competing traditions outright as a form of betrayal.  It is a tradition’s closed-minded aspect.  Insofar as genuine provisionality is accepted, there are traditional authorities but they are subject to fair game criticism as much as anyone else and the exploration of other traditions can become not only a betrayal of faith and tradition but welcomed as the reinvigoration and constructive evolution of one’s tradition.  That liberal outlook is wholly at odds with the spirit of authoritarianism that goes with “sacred texts” and “sacred institutions” which pretend almost invariably to unchanging, eternal, superiorly enlightened truth while only actually propping up centuries outdated notions out of stubborn pride and fear of change.  A religious person who can either learn to see through secular eyes hypothetically to compare perspectives or who is lucky enough, as I was, to actually be raised also with secular traditions which naturally compete with their religious ones can eventually lessen their volitional faith commitment, reveal it to be provisional in practice after all, and actually leave or drastically alter their faith.  But faith itself is the belief habit which resists and explicitly rejects the real possibility of such transformation.  Under pressure faith learns to allow you to flirt with doubt and other traditions if your reason simply must, but you certainly are not to seriously entertain running away with it!

Your Thoughts?

To catch up with any previous installments of this “Disambiguating Faith” series which you may have missed, follow the links listed below. Each post can be understood without reference to the others, even though many develop interrelated theses.

Disambiguating Faith: Trustworthiness, Loyalty, And Honesty

Disambiguating Faith: Faith As Loyally Trusting Those Insufficiently Proven To Be Trustworthy

Disambiguating Faith: Faith As Tradition

Disambiguating Faith: Blind Faith: How Faith Traditions Turn Trust Without Warrant Into A Test Of Loyalty

Disambiguating Faith: The Threatening Abomination Of The Faithless

Rational Beliefs, Rational Actions, And When It Is Rational To Act On What You Don’t Think Is True

Disambiguating Faith: Faith As Guessing

Disambiguating Faith: Are True Gut Feelings And Epiphanies Beliefs Justified By Faith

Disambiguating Faith: Faith Is Neither Brainstorming, Hypothesizing, Nor Simply Reasoning Counter-Intuitively

Disambiguating Faith: Faith In The Sub-, Pre, Or Un-Conscious

Disambiguating Faith: Can Rationality Overcome It?

Disambiguating Faith: Faith As A Form Of Rationalization Unique To Religion

Disambiguating Faith: Faith As Deliberate Commitment To Rationalization

Disambiguating Faith: Heart Over Reason

Disambiguating Faith: Faith As Corruption Of Children’s Intellectual Judgment

Disambiguating Faith: Faith As Subjectivity Which Claims Objectivity

Disambiguating Faith: Faith Is Preconditioned By Doubt, But Precludes Serious Doubting

Disambiguating Faith By Soul Searching With Clergy Guy

Disambiguating Faith: Faith As Admirable Infinite Commitment For Finite Reasons

Last month, Amren dealt with the issue of what we call ourselves. I liked the article, in part because he sounded the same themes I did last spring when I addressed white advocacy and race realism.

The writer rejected names such as racialist (which to me always sounded too much like racist), European-American (how European are you if you’ve been here for 400 years and don’t even know what country your ancestors are from?) and alike. He came up with the conclusion that “White Advocate” is the best term.

Of all the terms that are used, it’s probably the best one, but it still made me feel like it’s lacking. I’ve given it a bit of thought in the last month and here’s what I came up with: we don’t need something as direct.

Our opponents do not call themselves egalitarians or equality advocates. They use neutral terms: liberal, progressive.

White advocate sounds like you are for whites, but it also states what you are against. Just as feminism is necessarily anti-male to some degree or another, white advocacy must be anti-minority.

It also sounds like a radical new theory. “Here I am, the knight in shining armor coming to save the day with my new ideology.”

Instead, we should emphasize that our ideology is just the same as that of all generations of Americans until the 1960s. Everyone in our camp says that this is what we want. So let’s define ourselves as such.

A term that I like is traditionalist.

We want to keep or return to the Traditional America. Not the Hate America advocated by the Nazis and the “non-Nazis” who believe that the Third Reich was the best regime of the modern era. But also not the Kumbaya America advocated by the Left where we must allow ourselves to be invaded by foreign peoples and cultures.

We want the America that lasted from George Washington until Dwight Eisenhower. They weren’t men of hate, but nor were they liberals.

They were Christian, but not anti-scientific.

They wanted to see a country for and by whites, though they never advocated the forcible expulsion of non-whites who were born here. (Even Filip DeWinter doesn’t!)

They were proud of their own heritage, without feeling the need to take away from others’ achievements.

They were men who went to school, but to learn rather than get brainwashed and scream mindless slogans.

We want the traditional America where our country is portrayed positively in the media and in schools; where whites can be proud of themselves; where regular folks can live in city centers (“inner city”) without being crime targets.

This was our parents’ America. This was the traditional America. This is what we want. At our core, we are traditionalists.

The Law Quod at Michigan State Univesity

Paper proposals are now welcome for the fourth North American international conference on esotericism, with a special focus on

The Association for the Study of Esotericism [ASE] For more information on the ASE and our conference, see our website at http://www.aseweb.org

=====================================

This week while I was catching up on my current affairs I came across a rather interesting article on the Mail & Guardian website (originally published in The Guardian). It was one of those articles that get the synapses in your brain firing. By the time I reached the last sentence I was thinking, “I have something to say about this.”

The name of the article was “Stop blaming the poor. Yachters are burning the planet.” The basic gist of it was (I’ll go into more detail a bit later) was that the upper class are blaming the rural inhabitants of developing countries for global warming because they have so many children. A bizarre accusation for them to make as they zoom around the dying ocean in a yacht that consumes 3 400 litres of fuel per hour when travelling at 60 knots. 3 400 litres of fuel per hour! That’s nearly a litre per second! But it must be the African babies with all that breathing that’s contributing to global warming.

I was unaware that anyone thought the contribution of overpopulation to global warming was significant enough to get all riled up about. According to the said article, “Sub-Saharan Africa produced 18,5% of the world’s population growth and just 2,4% of the growth in CO2. North America turned out only 4% of the extra people, but 14% of the extra emissions. Sixty-three percent of the world’s population growth happened in places with very low emissions.” But according to an article published in the Sunday Times in May there is a club of billionaires in the USA (Where else?) who when faced with the decision of which cause to support, tackling “population growth as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat” came out tops. Seriously? Why don’t they make a withdrawal of $5 from their billion dollar bank accounts and rent a copy of An Inconvenient Truth? Then they would see that USA is responsible for 30.3% of the earth’s carbon emissions, and the whole of Africa only contributes 2.5% and fellow developing continents, South and Central America, contribute 3.8%. According to Wikipedia, “If resources required to sustain the organism are being consumed by the organism faster than the resource can be renewed, then the organism is overpopulated. For example, humans are consuming fossil fuels much faster than the planet can renew them.” Does the Billionaires Club think that these fossil fuels are being guzzled by the guy in the Transkei driving a donkey cart, just because he happens to have eight kids? Perhaps the Billionaires Club should look at their Hummers, yachts and heated swimming pools as being “potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threats”. No, wait. Not “potentially”. The damage has already been done.

While the attitude of wealthy Americans is as sickening as it is unsurprising, it was not that aspect of the article that struck me. While global warming, whoever’s fault it is, is an incredibly inconvenient truth, it is not the only matter at hand. It is all very well to tell the billionaires that they are wrong about blaming overpopulation in developing countries for global warming, but overpopulation is still a problem. A problem that is separate from global warming and should be discussed accordingly.

I like to consider myself environmentally aware. I recycle, turn my geyser off during the day, and take the train into work instead of driving. I’m in no way suggesting that the planet isn’t in serious trouble, but putting the environmental factor aside for a moment, we should consider that overpopulation in developing countries is more of a socio-political issue.

As a white, middle-class South African, I’m anticipating that my opinions will be met with arguments like “You just don’t understand African traditionalism.” And to an extent, I don’t. I wasn’t raised with a traditional African mentality, so obviously I will never fully understand it. But I do try to view situations with an open mind. To look at ways of doing things that are different to the way I was taught, and see it from a different point of view. I know that in many traditional African cultures it is believed that the more children one has, the wealthier they are. I know that in many cultures, not only African, people have a lot of children so they are sure that someone will be there to take care of them when they are elderly and cannot look after themselves. And in completely rural habitat, I can understand that mindset.

However, the world has changed. Of course there are still many rural areas, particularly in developing countries, but with rapid urbanisation and the rural youth having more access to education now than before, the rural areas are becoming less and less. Blame Western culture for taking over if you like. Hell, I do. But we live in a country in which a quarter of the population is unemployed (a statistic that doesn’t include ‘discouraged job seekers’). Crime is rampant because people are desperate and angry. The world has changed to such an extent that the more children you have, the poorer you are. And with the younger people having access to education, they’ll probably take on the Western approach of taking care of their elderly parents by sending money rather than taking off work to sit at their bedsides, if their job pays them well enough to allow even that. Pushing out as many babies as possible doesn’t make the same sense it once did. Then of course constant reproduction isn’t as safe as it used to be either because of that perpetual downer, HIV/Aids. But that, dear reader, is a blog for another day.

To read the original article on the Mail & Guardian website click here.

Photo Credit: Brenda Nkuna