Chesterton

Evangelization by beauty

The restoration of Notre Dame Cathedral is a marvelous thing.  How encouraging to see world leaders visiting a sacred Christian space and treating it with such respect?

This goes beyond political pleasantries or diplomatic protocols - the cathedral is itself beautiful.  I have never seen it, but I recall being moved to tears by the beauty of the Dom in Trier.

When I was younger, I partly bought into the Protestant argument that golden chalices and detailed artwork were a form of idolatry, and that money spent on architecture was better used to feed the poor.  

Then I grew up.  I realized that faith is a not a zero-sum game, and that money spent on religious art actually can increase giving the poor because it touches the heart, and moves people to acts of charity.

These thoughts returned to me some months ago, when I attended a friend's funeral at a rural Baptist church. The building was purely utilitarian, the fit and finish were right in line with any other institution.  Other than the cross on the far wall, the main space could have been confused for a hotel conference room, which even had a projection screen.  The entire laying was sterile, reminiscent of a public school auditorium.  There was nothing to elevate, or inspire.  The service itself was something of a variety show, with the pastor sitting like Johnny Carson off to one side as the acts performed.

Returning to my parish, I gratefully took in the various images and icons, the Stations of the Cross carvings, chapel and various grottos for private devotions.  I should add that as far as Catholic church buildings go, my parish is actually pretty modern, having been built in 1957 in a college town, so it has many mid-century flourishes and the seating forms a semi-circle, rather than the traditional cruciform aisles.

Still, when the there are slow moments, I am comforted by those images, which help keep my mind on task.  I also think of the artisans responsible for the work, and the satisfaction they no doubt derive from glorifying God.

That's the larger point - if we view religious art as decadent and wasteful, we will have only secular art, which is far more vulgar and typically points to sin.  Is it not better to have talented painters evoke salvation history or should they go for the make their money in pornography?

One of the greatest negative outcomes of Vatican II was the destruction of so much religious art.  Our cathedral is currently undertaking a massive restoration project to undo the damage wrought on it by the reformers.  Vivid murals were simply painted over and the building was given a white, sterile appearance.  Nothing to elevate or inspire.  It looked Protestant.  I can understand why people would have left the Church upon seeing that - and I can also see how people might consider conversion when beholding the meticulous devotion and financial investment in sacred beauty.

This power was celebrated by G.K. Chesterton and Evelyn Waugh, who already seeing the destructive hand a modernism calling for new "efficiencies."

I'm sure they would loathe what passes for Protestant religious art, which is either abstract or kitchy and saccharine and self-indulgent.  I'm thinking specifically of soft-focus portraits of Christ, making him look more like a 1970s hippie musician than the Savior.  I suppose it's an outgrowth of the "personal savior" motif and as such He's more of a boyfriend or pal than the Son of Man.

Of course, a recurring Protestant criticism of religious art is that its somehow idolatry, which is patently absurd.  No one is offering sacrifice to the images, or attempting to trap a deity within a sacred statue.  Icons are what they appear to be - images that help center our thought on God.   What better way to contemplate the sacred mysteries than by gazing on an image of Our Lady of Guadalupe?

That's another element - much of the art has historic value, and when we look at it, we see how our forefathers perceived God and salvation history.  This in turn points us to seeking the wisdom of the Church Fathers and the writings and acts of the saints.  Archeology confirms that sacred art has always been used in both Judaism and Christianity.  That modern variants of the two have turned their backs on it only underlines how out of the orthodox traditions they have become.


Catholics don't worship the pope, but Protestants do

Last week Carl Trueman, a frequent contributor to First Things, posed an online essay explaining why he is not a Catholic.

If you are a subscriber, you can read my reply on the site, which pointed out that becoming Catholic is often a strugged between one's beliefs and accepting the fact that others may actually know more about the faith.  I specifically mentioned John Henry Newman, G.K. Chesterton and Evelyn Waugh as people who possessed far more knowledge than I, and in a context of wisdom, their combined insight was more than a match for mine.

I also that a lot of objections to the Church center on vanity; whether it is good enough as opposed to being valid, and that for many Americans, faith is much like picking out a car - you try the find the one that best suits you.

However, having read other responses (and re-read Trueman), I've noticed that the vast majority of his essay isn't about the lineage of the Church, the wisdom of the Church Fathers, the validity of the sacraments, etc., it's most about a personal dislike of the pope and a disdain for the veneration accorded the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Protestant really seem to have a particular hate for Our Lady, and I'm not sure why.  I freely admit that it took me time to get used to Marian prayers, but that was simply because I wasn't very well churched.  In time, I realized just how important a figure the BVM is in salvation history.  

She's not a rebranded Venus, but a figure foretold in the Old Testament and brought into fruition in the New.  I think a lot of Protestants know what they have said about Her, and it would be tough climb down to take all that back.

But the larger issue is clearly the pope, and I think this is not because of arcane arguments about the sweep of papal authority, or his role in the Magisterium, the relative precedence among bishops and patriarchs, but instead Protestantism's unique focus on the holiness of the individual ministers.

For Protestants, ministry is a unique, individual calling, which is why you have major figures emerge like Billy Graham.  Their personal charisma is the proof of their divine sanction.  In addition to living an upright life, they have to deliver inspiring sermons and constantly preach with confidence as this shows that they have "the spirit within them."  Because there is no apostolic succession, no sacrament of ordination,  or even sacraments at all, personal charm is all that Protestants can fall back on.

One need not even be formally educated to preach and develop a following.  Indeed, such figures are often treated far better than those with doctorates in theology because they are more "authentic."  Thus,  it may be difficult for someone like Trueman to understand that Catholic clergy can vary greatly in their personalities, knowledge and holiness, but their sacraments are all just as valid.

It also bears mentioning that Catholics have a different understanding of suffering and humiliation.  I see Francis not as the pope we wanted, but the one we needed.  He has done more to expose the corruption of the church than anyone else.  His flirtations with heresy have reinforced the importance of the Magisterium in Church doctrine, demonstrating that the pope cannot simply wake up one day and redefine dogma.

Protestants really seem to believe this, in part because in their churches, it's absolutely the case.  Time and again, we have seen televangelists and mega-churches riven asunder in personal and family disputes.  The assumption clearly is that Francis is the harbinger of some terrible liberal Catholic future.

In reality, he's likely to be the ignoble last gasp of liberal Catholicism.    As I've noted before, the seminaries are packed with very orthodox young men.  Francis imagines himself the future, but he is part of a fleeting movement that is already fading into the past.

Trueman does not understand this, and it diminishes his stature, which is unfortunate, as he does have some keen insights into the weakness of Protestantism.  As in so many other cases, his pride seems greater than his wisdom.


The False Consciousness

When Marxism failed to sway the proletarian masses, Communist leaders had to explain why.   They hit upon the notion of a "false consciousness," that is that the workers had been duped.  Religion was a major part of this, the "opiate of the masses" and had to be destroyed for the revolution to succeed.

Only once they saw the world as it was (that is, according to Marxists) would the Communist dream come to be.

Of course, Marxism itself is a religion, a form of heresy, which is why it persists despite a record of complete failure wherever it has been tried.

The concept of false consciousness has also endured, and in recent years, has actually appeared.  Thanks to corrupt news outlets and social media, a fully realized alternative universe now exists for many people.

Imagine being a fan of a sportsball team, and visiting a "news" site specific to that team that actually published false scores of the games, turning a close loss into a blowout win.  As the season progresses, the faithful fans happily anticipate playing in the championship game and tune in filled with expectations of glory only to learn that they never made the playoffs.

(This will be the mental state of Michigan fans when their victories and titles from 2021-3 are vacated next month.)

It remains to be seen how these people will react to the revelation that the real world is different from the one on their screens.  Many are threatening suicide and some have already carried it out - sometimes murdering others as well in their rage and despair.

There is no easy way back to reality for these people, and the ones who broke them have much to answer for.  It remains to be seen how many will make the transition or what their new delusion will be.  Happily, with God anything is possible, and I wonder how many will in time be drawn back to Him.  We can only hope.


Spiritual warfare and Halloween

With Halloween looming, I thought now would be a good time to look at some modern guides for spiritual warfare.  Over the past few years, Catholic media has gotten a lot more strident about All Hallows Eve and All Saints Day, which is a good thing.  Yes, Halloween is generally a secular excuse to eat candy and dress up, but it also presents a unique opportunity for people who are already in the mood for tales of the supernatural to look at the reality of faith.

Halloween can therefore be a gateway for good, but also evil, since modern "goth" takes and overtly satanic themes and practices are becoming more common.  Witchcraft has never been more popular and naive young people are particularly vulnerable to being caught up in 'naughty' rituals or 'games' that purport to use magic (such as the vile Ouija board).

Two fairly recent books provide good advice on how to avoid these snares and a larger look at the reality of spiritual warfare.

Diary of an American Exorcist by Stephen Rossetti is a fascinating book that explains the modern practice of exorcisms, the difference between spiritual possession and oppression, and provides specific references from the Bible that help explain what is going on.  It's a quick, engaging read and not particularly scary because - as Rossetti points out - God wins in the end.

A Family Guide to Spiritual Warfare by Kathleen Beckman is a bit more detailed and includes some case studies.  I enjoyed it, but she does tend to repeat herself and I found myself skimming ahead a bit because yes, I get the value of prayer, etc.  I can't help but wonder if it was a series of essays that were brought together without sufficient editing, which would certainly explain the repetition.

What's interesting about both books is how mundane evil is. No need for head-spinning and pea soup eruptions - a lot of oppression and possession is just terrible life choices or cruelty that we write off as a personality quirk.

The books also highlight how people can be drawn into evil simply by assuming the spirit world doesn't exist, so cool goth tattoos or Santa Muerte decorations are just fashion statements.

Even after reading the books, I find myself still reflexively defaulting to the secular materialist explanation for things.  Intellectually, I'm well aware of the limitations of the view, but it pervades society and is arguably the greatest victory the devil has ever achieved.  The notion that an abstract principle of individual freedom supersedes God's written commandments is a monumental surrender to the forces of darkness.

The laws of men are supposed to reflect those of God, not the other way around.  It is no accident that having gained the commanding heights of government, nominally secular people now demand that people of faith violate their believes in the name of some abstract right that didn't exist until 20 minutes ago.  The drama regarding silent prayer in England is perhaps the perfect distillation of the wickedness dressed up as bureaucratic bungling.

I remember many years ago thinking that my true political home was "classical liberalism," which had somehow been perverted into socialism.  Thanks in part to reading G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, I now know that it was baked into the cake from the start.  Placing an abstraction like liberty as the highest good must inevitably force constraints on alternative sources of morality, which is why Catholic hospitals are constantly being sued to compel them to perform abortions and public prayer is being criminalized.

Both books provide insight into why these particular issues are being litigated, something unimaginable just a few years ago.

To put it another way, you may not be interested in the spirit world, but it's very interested in you!


Why religious people are terrible at politics

It being an election year, the usual debate is going on within the Christian (and especially Catholic) community about which candidate is least odious and therefore deserving of the observant religious vote.

For a long time, these decisions were made during the primary election season and the general rule was that of Nixon - run to the extreme during the primary and the center during the general.

The Right to Life movement in particular has been something of a cheap date for my entire adulthood.  Roe v. Wade was established law, so it was easy for an aspiring GOP contender to swear their Pro-life allegiance and then do nothing because "their hands were tied."

When Roe fell, the battlefield opened up, and I think the Right-to-Lifers got a bit high on their own supply, figuring that the old bans would revert and their work was done.

They have been proven disastrously wrong in a string of campaigns that left them flat-footed and badly outspent.  Put simply: these people are terrible at electoral politics.

While the Jesuits have taken things a bit far, there is something to be said from studying one's opponents and learning from their tactics.

Incrementalism works.

Too many orthodox religious voters want moral absolutes, and short of that, see little point in engaging.  The opposite is true - spiritual warfare is an attritional conflict, not to be won by the passage of a law or even an amendment.   It must be attended to daily, both within and without.  Incremental victories can become strategic ones, and this requires both prudence and an understanding of the theological principles of subsidiarity properly applied.

Thus: people who suggest tanking the least worst candidate in favor of the worst in order to "teach the party a lesson" are effectively saying that more abortion now, more souls lost now can somehow be made up for less in some hypothetical future where their emboldened enemies don't manage to lock in their gains.

I disagree with that.  I think offering stout resistance in every way and on every front - both within and without one's party - is the only option.  And at the end of the day, half a win is better than no win at all, especially when there is zero guarantee that our increasingly secular society won't blame the loss on disloyal or alienating "religious nuts."

When people behold disastrous results from their counsel, "My hands are clean" is scant comfort to the others who are suffering.  We must remember that God will judge us by our fruit, not our intentions.


Everyone is so untrue

For the last few weeks Billy Joel's "Honesty" has been running through my mind.  The scope and quantity of lies in public discourse is simply overwhelming.

As the title of the post says - everyone is so untrue.

It is no accident that Man's from grace began with a lie.  Lying comes natural to evil people and often reaches the extent that they lie about everything, no matter how trivial or self-defeating.

We're to the point where once-respected organizations are now rejecting their own reportage in order to toe the Party line.  It's completely self-defeating, but so is evil.

As the song says:

I can always find someone who says they sympathize if I wear my heart out on my sleeve, but I don't want some pretty face to tell me pretty lies.  All I want is someone to believe.

Apparently, pretty lies are in great demand these days.

There is a strain of thought - popularized by Hollywood and contemporary culture - that lies indicate intelligence, and clever lies are the sign of a superior kind of person.  This has obvious appeal to prideful people lost in their vanity, and is of a piece with the elevation of cowardice to a virtue as well.

None of this is new, Chesterton and Belloc wrote about it more than a century ago, and Waugh's writings also address the issue.  A key plot point in his Sword of Honour trilogy is how an otherwise admirable British officer convinces himself that the smart thing to do is abandon his men on Crete and save himself, only to realize that while lip-service is paid to such cleverness, in practice society finds it despicable.  

The scandal is so great that punishment is out of the question, and he is hustled off to the Pacific theater, where he finds redemption through conventional acts of bravery and courage.

Of course modern society also rejects the notion of redemption or forgiveness.  There are only the Yard Sign Calvinists and everyone else.    As I noted a couple of weeks ago, one of the most consequential shifts in American culture was when progressive Christians decided that their mission was to condemn rather than convert.

If one isn't trying to draw people to eternal truth, duping them with lies seems a reasonable thing to do, especially if you merely want to keep them in line.

It's a self-limiting tactic, but siding with evil has always been a sucker's bet.  That's because the biggest lie of all is that one can somehow escape divine judgement.

 


Debating the 1990s

There's a bit of a back-and-forth going on at Bleeding Fool over the worth of the 1990s.

I think the perception of any period is heavily colored by one's personal experience of it - either having lived through it, or its art, politics, and entertainment.

It's hard to separate a time of personal misery from the larger zeitgeist.  Still, I think my take is an objective one.  The pre-9/11 world was a better one, and while I found myself frustrated and depressed during that period, I still had a lot of fun.  Indeed, I recognize that with better judgement, I'd have had a better decade.

The other issue with sitting in judgement is that culture and life don't simply flip with the page of a calendar.  The decades bleed into each other, and what one thinks of as the epitome of a particular era may have happened before or after the actual dates in question.

For example, the decay of Protestantism didn't start in the 1990s, it was merely revealed then.

One can't look at the cultural tides in music, art, entertainment and politics in isolation.

At the same time, it is easy to fall into the trap of overdeterminism - the notion that the out come of a recent event was inexorably set in motion by a distant one.  I see a lot of otherwise reasonable people insist that the Union victory in the Civil War is the direct, inevitable cause of all our contemporary problems.  Apparently the people living and ruling in intervening decades were denied any form of agency.  It's very much a Calvinist approach to history.

It is true that historical writers often were able to predict the future by examining contemporary trends.  C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton and even J.R.R. Tolkien did this.  But as Tolkien in particular might admit, nothing was fixed - no one was forced to follow that path.  It's also true that many dangers fail to materialize, or that their impact is mitigated.

There are many currents in the stream of history, and some of them are hard to see.  It's also the case that there are other powers at work, the Unseen who most analysts completely ignore.

Combine a purely secular materialist frame with overdeterminism and the result will likely be devoid of any useful analysis.


Were St. Patrick's prayers answered?

There was some heartening news from Ireland last week.  The latest progressive reforms, which would have changed the constitution to redefine the family, failed spectacularly at the ballot box.

Perhaps the Irish are beginning to appreciate their culture again and rebelling against the soulless globalization movement.

The decline of Irish culture and religious has been shockingly fast.  The central idea of making Ireland a tax haven and global service center was always flawed because no one considered that when the world came to Ireland, it would remake the Emerald Isle in its own flat, commerce-centered image.

The corporations have colonized Ireland more quickly and more thoroughly than the English ever could.

And yet, a limit has (at least for the moment) been reached.  I think that much of the cultural destruction we've seen over the last decades has been seen as inevitable, the flip side of globalism.  However, it is now clear that decline is a choice, and one actually can "turn back the clock" by embracing tradition and choosing family-centered economic policies.

The current controversies in the Catholic Church prove this.  The remarkable thing isn't that Pope Francis has started pushing heresy and sowing division, it is the the Church is vehemently and successfully resisting.  His successor will be made of different cloth and the folly of trying to "get along" with the Spirit of the Age was demonstrated by the Anglican schism.

Here's hoping that the Irish (and the rest of Christendom) continue to resist the secular pressure to conform to what is actually demonic influence.  St. Patrick, pray for us.


The myth of White Christian Nationalism

I guess calling everyone who disagreed with you a Nazi isn't working out, so the new hotness is "Christian Nationalism," or even "White Christian Nationalism."

Yes, it's all about politics, which bores me to death, but I am interested in the theological aspect of this - which is to say, the multiple contradictions in the label.

The first is the business about being "white."  I suppose there may be some isolated corners of Christendom that still appeal to the old heresy about non-white people being the Children of Cain or eternally cursed, but they are on the outer edge of the most distant fringe of the faith.

The only large-scale denomination I know of that adhered to this was the Church of Latter Day Saints, aka the Mormons.  I believe there were some American Baptist sects that did in the 19th Century, but American Protestantism has long been a confusing swirl of various denominations that splinter, recombine, and then split again, and it's hard to keep track.

In any rate, it's an archetypal straw man, a scandalous libel that is easily dismissed by serious people, but since its purpose is to reassure the wavering Yard Sign Calvinists, it won't go away anytime soon.

If there was a kernel of truth in the white smear, there's no substance whatsoever in the concept of a Christian Nationalism.   This should be blindingly obvious to anyone who has ever even glanced at the ecumenical movement.

Even within the various denominations there is spirited disagreement.  How can one form a monolithic Christian state when even the Catholic Church is absorbed with internal doctrinal debates?  The same is true in Protestant circles, with major denominations roiled by controversy over how much sexual deviancy is acceptable and female ordination.

There can be no Christian Nationalism because there is no "Christian Nation."

This is the sort of hysteria that moves people to dress like characters from The Handmaid's Tale, folks who are likely blissfully unaware that the dystopian world of the novel (and TV show) is already here, courtesy of the Democrats, who even now are pushing hard to further normalize the buying and selling of human infants.   I guess mothers for hire (or human incubators) are super-bad when there's a religious element, but compassionate and necessary when used to farm out babies to gay couples.

It is possible that Christian Nationalism is supposed to indicate a fear that there might be Christians who also love their country, though - based on military recruiting numbers - this group seems to be getting smaller by the day.

Is Nationalism a Biblical virtue?  Absolutely.  It is rooted in the Ten Commandments: "Honor thy father and thy mother."  This not only covers respecting them while they are alive but also retaining their customs and culture after they are gone.  

When one mocks one's ancestors, denounces their language, heritage, and casts down their monuments, this commandment is being broken. 

The Bible is the story of a people that becomes a nation, and nowhere in Christian theology is there an admonition to cast aside one's culture and worship commerce, or innovation.

It is a mark of the strange state of the world where loving one's country is now considered subversive and sinister, where honoring one's ancestors is bigoted and reprehensible.

But there we are.

Upon reflection, this isn't that new.  G.K. Chesterton was commenting on it a century ago.  It's just yet another recycled heresy.

If we want to go even deeper, the same situation rose in Republican Spain, where churches were attacked and clergy lynched (even their graves were desecrated) and of course Communist China unleashed the Cultural Revolution that went much farther.  The Killing Fields of Cambodia is the ultimate embodiment of this nihilist belief.

The label is clearly a smear, but also partly cover for people who actually want to erase both Christianity and the nations.  As to what will replace them, I don't think even they know. Remember, Yard Sign Calvinism is never about results.  The pose is the point.

Still, it is interesting to note that the Chinese Communist Party is now ardently promoting nationalism.  I won't hold my breath for columns warning of Marxist Nationalism, but it's both more real and more lethal than White Christian Nationalism.

And yes, I am aware that there are people who are saying "Yes, it exists and it's a good thing!"  This is of a piece with my previous posts about people defending the Confederacy.  There will always be people trying to profit from a hot take on something.

As a practical matter, however, the term exists to discredit what used to be healthy, normal attitudes towards one faith and country.  Pretending it is some sort of radical new thing is nonsense.

 

 

 

 


Hammering it home: G.K. Chesterton's St. Francis of Assisi

I find G.K. Chesterton somewhat frustrating.  He's a great writer, full of inventive turns of phrases and his social and religious commentary is spot-on, but he has a tendency to go on and on, hammering the point to an extent that it becomes tedious.

I'm reminded of Mel Brooks, who can be very funny, but he also has a tendency to milk a gag too much, so that the laughter fades and you look at your watch, waiting for the scene to end.

That being said, St. Francis of Assisi has its going points, and it is not so much a biography as a portrait and an explanation, an attempt to bring an earlier, more vivid view of the world into a jaded, secular materialist frame.

Chesterton's point is that modern audiences simply can't relate to many historical figures because we've been blinded to the supernatural and have a reflexive need to discredit remarkable things.  Even after my conversion, I remained in this mode of thinking, looking for a "rational explanation" for things.

But what if spiritual warfare is the rational explanation?  It's been documented for thousands of years in every culture.  Are they all wrong and we're the Anointed Few who finally get it?  If so, what are the fruits of our knowledge?  What blessings are we finding due to this discovery?

Well, for starters our birth rates are plummeting, our young people are mutilating themselves and committing suicide, societal cohesion is collapsing and by every measure people are finding less happiness and fulfillment than their grandparents did while living on the oppression of religious teaching.

Chesterton picked up on this trend a century ago, and his vindication is complete.  I think that's why his works have such relevance. 

An additional element that makes this book in particular a timely read is the stark contrast between St. Francis (blunt, plain-speaking without a hint of guile) and the pope who has taken his name.  Pope Francis buries his writings in contradictions and ambiguity, leaving even his supporters wondering what they are supposed to be defending.  The recent fiasco surrounding blessing "irregular relationships" is but one of many examples.

St. Francis of Assisi could quiet flocks of birds with a kind word, and fearlessly approached mighty leaders, even trying to convert one of the caliphs.  Quite the contrast.