RSS
Living Together
- Civility & Rhetoric (53) : Discourse, Persuasion, Respect
- Activism & Revolt (16) : Making Change
- Family (1) : The Family
- Government, Law, Politics (57)
- War & Peace (31) : War & Peacemaking
- Journalism (10) : All that's fit to print
- Education (15) : Scholarship and Pedagogy
- History (11) : History and Method
- In/Tolerance (20) : Living With Differences
- Church & State (37) : God & Country
Lao-tzu on Being a Great Power said...
Tao Te Ching, abt.551-479 BCE
When a country obtains great power,
it becomes like the sea:
all streams run downward into it.
The more powerful it grows,
the greater the need for humility.
Humility means trusting the Tao,
thus never needing to be defensive.
A great nation is like a great man:
When he makes a mistake, he realizes it.
Having realized it, he admits it.
Having admitted it, he corrects it.
He considers those who point out his faults
as his most benevolent teachers.
He thinks of his enemy
as the shadow that he himself casts.
If a nation is centered in the Tao,
if it nourishes its own people
and doesn't meddle in the affairs of others,
it will be a light to all nations in the world.
it becomes like the sea:
all streams run downward into it.
The more powerful it grows,
the greater the need for humility.
Humility means trusting the Tao,
thus never needing to be defensive.
A great nation is like a great man:
When he makes a mistake, he realizes it.
Having realized it, he admits it.
Having admitted it, he corrects it.
He considers those who point out his faults
as his most benevolent teachers.
He thinks of his enemy
as the shadow that he himself casts.
If a nation is centered in the Tao,
if it nourishes its own people
and doesn't meddle in the affairs of others,
it will be a light to all nations in the world.
"The Public Square" in First Things 107 (November 2000): 69-88.
The myth of a covenant, we are told, is simply no longer believable. From Thomas Hobbes in the seventeenth century through John Rawls in the twentieth, it was replaced by the myth of the social contract. I expect people counted the myth of the social contract more believable because it was a myth of their own creation. It was a fiction pure and simple, but it had the attraction of being our fiction. According to this story, human beings emerged from a "state of nature" in order to constitute society. Or, in the case of John Rawls, they are behind a pre-social "veil of ignorance" making deals with one another according to their calculated self-interest and thus bringing "society," with its key idea of justice, into being. No matter how sophisticated, or at least complicated, theories of social contract may be, they are as thoroughly made up as nursery tales. In fact, there are not and never have been human beings apart from societies. The individual person does not emerge from isolation into society but from society. Some societies are called primitive and some are called advanced, but society is the constant in the human story. The "state of nature" and "veil of ignorance" are fables; nobody has ever encountered, nor can we even plausibly hypothesize, persons apart from society.
First Things 107 (November 2000): 69-88.
Americans have at times "theologized" their history, seeing this experiment as an instrument — maybe even the instrument — of God's unfolding purposes. That way of thinking has been out of fashion for some time now. When it was in vogue, it was sometimes attended by a doctrine of American "exceptionalism" so exaggerated that American purposes were depicted in angelic hues, untouched by the ambiguities, corruptions, and lust for power associated with mere mortals... The caution is always in order. Those who think of themselves as angels may end up by giving themselves license to do things that are, in fact, quite beastly.
Richard John Neuhaus on America said...
First Things 107 (November 2000): 69-88.
One reason American history is no longer told in terms of redemptive purpose is that we no longer think of history itself as having a purpose. History is a matter of this happening and then that happening and then the other thing happening, and who is to say what it all means? As the man said, "History is just one damn thing after another." The very idea that history should have a meaning strikes many of our contemporaries as highly improbable, maybe even nonsensical. If there is no purpose, there is no meaning. There is, although perhaps only on the surface, something attractively modest about this way of thinking. Especially when it is contrasted with the pride, presumption, and delusions of divinely ordained power that sometimes attended talk about "Christian America."
Forbes ASAP, October 2, 2000.
You would not believe the number of sensitivities that have to be kept in mind in public discourse. I once got mad at some Texas legislators over a spectacularly pea-brained stunt and referred to them as "a bunch of droolers." I was promptly served with pamphlets from an outfit called the Society to Prevent Cruelty to Those Who Involuntarily Drool. (Very sad, actually, people who have had strokes often drool involuntarily.) People make fun of political correctness, but if you're running for office, left-handed lesbians of Czech descent are out there, and they are touchy.
Isaiah Berlin (Farrar, Straus, and Giroux: August 2000), 672 pages.
Oxford professor, philosopher, and historian of ideas, the late Sir Isaiah Berlin (1909-97) was also one of the finest English essayists in the 20th century. This retrospective collection of 17 of his best essays surveys his entire career as a thinker, including his work in political philosophy and the philosophy of history, his thoughts on the Enlightenment, Vico, and Machiavelli, and his passion for Russian literature. Reprinted are such seminal essays as "Two Concepts Liberty" and "The Hedgehog and the Fox," as well as his reflections on Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt. Edited by scholars Hardy and Hausheer, who also provides an introduction, and with a foreword by Noel Annan, this book also includes a helpful bibliography. A fitting epitaph for a man passionately and eloquently devoted to ideas. ~ Library Journal
All Too Human (Back Bay Books: 2000)
Because I believe in original sin, because I know that I'm capable of craving a cold beer in a village of starving kids, because I know that selfishness vies for space in our hearts with compassion, I believe we need government. A government that forces us to care about the common good even when we don't feel like it, a government that helps channel our better instincts and check our bad ones. I don't think government is good, just necessary.
J. P. Moreland, Address at Christian Scholarship: Tensions and Contributions at The Ohio State University (1999).
Thoughtful Christians are agreed that an important component of
Christian scholarship is the integration of faith and learning, as it is
sometimes called. Because Christians are interested in the truth for
its own sake and because they are called to proclaim and defend their
views to an unbelieving world and to seek to live consistently with
those views, it is important for members of the believing community to
think carefully about how to integrate their carefully formed
theological beliefs with prominent claims in other fields of study. As
St. Augustine wisely asserted, "We must show our Scriptures not to be in
conflict with whatever [our critics] can demonstrate about the nature
of things from reliable sources."1 However, the task of integration is hard work and there is no
widespread agreement about how it is to be done generally or about what
its results should look like in specific cases. In what follows, I shall
do three things to contribute to the integrative enterprise: 1)
describe the relation between integration and spiritual formation; 2)
discuss current integrative priorities for the Christian scholar; 3)
analyze the epistemic tasks for and models employed in integration.
Thomas Sowell on War said...
One of the most fashionable notions of our times is that social problems like poverty and oppression breed wars. Most wars, however, are started by well-fed people with time on their hands to dream up half-baked ideologies or grandiose ambitions, and to nurse real or imagined grievances.
Arthur Koestler on War said...
Even a cursory glance at history should convince one that individual crimes committed for selfish motives play a quite insignificant part in the human tragedy, compared to the numbers massacred in unselfish loyalty to one's tribe, nation, dynasty, church, or political ideology, ad majorem gloriam dei. The emphasis is on unselfish. Excepting a small minority of mercenary or sadistic disposition, wars are not fought for personal gain, but out of loyalty and devotion to king, country or cause. Homicide committed for personal reasons is a statistical rarity in all cultures, including our own. Homicide for unselfish reasons, at the risk of one's own life, is the dominant phenomenon of history.
Jaroslav Pelikan (Yale University Press: Nov 10, 1999), 304 pages.
Ask anyone to name the most influential person in history, and chances are the reply will be, simply, "Jesus." Here, Yale historian Pelikan ably explores the universe of power and influence embedded in that revered five-letter name, as he surveys the role of the carpenter from Galilee in "the general history of culture." Pelikan proceeds from the premise that the "image" of Jesus - his identity as perceived by successive epochs - is a mirror reflecting the course of Western civilization, and that tracing that image through time will reveal the "continuities and discontinuities" of the past two millennia. His project uncovers mostly discontinuities; Western culture's christological imagery changes dramatically from age to age. Pelikan begins by looking at the early concept of Jesus as prophet and and rabbi, prevalent in the first century. Subsequent chapters cover in chronological order 17 other major representations of Jesus. These include Jesus as Logos, as "bridegroom of the soul," as "Universal Man," and so on. Behind these wildly divergent images, however, a rainbowlike pattern emerges: Jesus's prestige arches steeply upwards from his humble origins as a crucified wonder-worker, reaches its apogee in his medieval elevation to alpha and omega of the cosmos, declines in modern times to his quasi-mundane role as prototypical social liberator. This man, it seems, can be all things to all people; like the Beauty he embodied for the Romantics, Jesus lies in the eyes of the beholder.
James Darsey (NYU Press: Sep 1, 1999), 279 pages.
This expansive volume traces the rhetoric of reform across American history, examining such pivotal periods as the American Revolution, slavery, McCarthyism, and today's gay liberation movement. At a time when social movements led by religious leaders, from Louis Farrakhan to Pat Buchanan, are playing a central role in American politics, James Darsey connects this radical tradition with its prophetic roots. Public discourse in the West is derived from the Greek principles of civility, diplomacy, compromise, and negotiation. On this model, radical speech is often taken to be a sympton of social disorder. Not so, contends Darsey, who argues that the rhetoric of reform in America represents the continuation of a tradition separate from the commonly accepted principles of the Greeks. Though the links have gone unrecognized, the American radical tradition stems not from Aristotle, he maintains, but from the prophets of the Hebrew Bible. ~ Synopsis
J. Budziszewski (Spence Pub: October 1, 1999), 184 pages.
Dr. Budziszewski begins by turning his criticism on himself, examining the foundations of the nihilism of his early career. Describing the political effects of Original Sin, he shows how man's suppression of his knowledge of right and wrong corrupts his conscience and accelerates social collapse. The depraved conscience grasps at the illusion of "moral neutrality," the absurd notion that men can live together without a shared understanding of how things are. After evaluating the political devices, including the American Constitution, by which men have tried in the past to work around the effects of Original Sin, Dr. Budziszewski elucidates the pitfalls of contemporary communitarianism, liberalism, and conservatism. The revenge of conscience is horrifically manifest today in abortion, euthanasia, and suicide, evils brought about by the pollution of good impulses such as pity, prudence, honor, and love. The way out of this confusion, he concludes, is Christianity, a once-prevalent faith whose troubling memory men now suppress along with their knowledge of the natural law. The political responsibility of Christians is somehow to stir up that memory and that knowledge, a daunting task in a world of sound bites and shouting matches. ~ Product Description
"Is the Religious Right Finished?" in Christianity Today (September 6, 1999), pg. 44
The reason, I think, is that politics itself has failed. And politics
has failed because of the collapse of the culture. The culture is
becoming an ever-wider sewer. We are caught up in a culutrual collapse
of historic proportions, a collapse so great that it simply overwhelms
politics.
"Is the Religious Right Finished?" in Christianity Today (September 6, 1999), pg. 58
In 1947 Carl Henry published The Uneasy Conscience of Modern
Fundamentalism and led Christians back into the American mainstream.
What really galvanized them, however, was the liberal victory in Roe v.
Wade. In one swoop, the Court struck down abortion laws in all 50
states, turning around an entire culture on the most crucial moral
issue of the day. The lesson was not lost on moral
conservatives: they concluded that top-down political action was the
most effective means of cultural transformation. If liberals could do
it, so could they.
"Is the Religious Right Finished?" in Christianity Today (September 6, 1999), pg. 47
Frustration at slow progress in the political arena is understandable.
But my advice to my friends in the pro-family movement is this: Do not
be discouraged. As Reinhold Niebuhr once observed, "The arc of history
is long, but it curves towards justice." This road is often long and
hard. But it has always been so. The antislavery movement began
petitioning Congress in the 1830s, and did not see slavery abolished
for 30 years — and that required a bloody war. The NAACP was founded
in 1909, but it did not even gain support in a national party platform
until 1948, and it did not pass landmark civil-rights
legislation until 1964. The suffragist movement gathered at Seneca
Falls in 1848, and women did not gain the right to vote nationally
until 1920. The same will be true in the pro-life and pro-family
movements. The gradual and incremental nature of our progress and
victories is not unusual in the history of social-reform movement in
the United States. It is the norm.
Is the Religious Right Finished? Christianity Today, September 6, 1999, pg. 48
Politics is not the answer to our national spiritual salvation. Only personal evangelism, marriage enrichment, the rebuilding of a child-centered culture, and spiritual revival can do that... But surrendering politics would essentially condemn future generations to the failed policies of the Left. And make no mistake: without our check, there would be no balance. Our withdrawal would condemn millions in this nation who otherwise might have struggled to maintain our culture. It would send countless more unborn to their premature deaths. It would consign too many children to lives without hope or opportunity in the inner city. It would mean a crushing burden of higher taxes that weighs too heavily on the middle-class families struggling to give their children a chance at the American dream. This we cannot and must not do.
Cal Thomas on Preaching Politics said...
"Is the Religious Right Finished?" Christianity Today (September 6, 1999), pg. 49.
Preachers should not be known for condemning others. If God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, what gives them the authority to condemn? If the ordained believe "the king's heart is in the hand of the Lord; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases," they have a biblical mandate not to trash a President they don't like or mawkishly support one they do admire.
Cal Thomas on Persuasion said...
"Is the Religious Right Finished?" Christianity Today (September 6, 1999), pg. 49.
...The unbeliever is unlikely to accept biblical truth when it comes wrapped in the voter guides of the Christian Coalition. Preachers occupy a unique place in American life. When they are known for their denunciation of the President or the endorsement of someone to replace him, unbelievers see them as players in the corrupting political power game. Preachers already possess a greater power than the world offers. When they grasp for the immediate and lesser power of partisan and necessarily compromising politics, they make a Faustian bargain for something that rarely changes hearts and minds.
"Is the Religious Right Finished?" Christianity Today (September 6, 1999), pg. 53.
The problem has not been expecting too little of politics, but far too much. True conservatism brings a natural skepticism to the reforming possibilities of politics. It sees as its first job the long-term cultivation of character, culture, and community. It views politics as "downstream" from culture, more reflecting it than shaping it. Conservatism avoids excessively politicizing religion or religionizing politics because genuine religious faith stirs allegiances that transcend nation and ideology. The Scriptures would counsel even more skepticism about both the possibilities of politics and the form in which it should be practiced.
Popular in Books
- Boston College's MA Philosophy Reading List
- How People Poison Everything
- Librarians' Top 100 Novels of 20th Century
- What's So Great About Christianity
- Faith of the Fatherless
- Oxford Handbook of Skepticism
- The Persecuted Atheist?
- Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics
- The Victory of Reason
- What Is a "Scientific Fact"? Won't Plain Ol' Facts Do?
Popular in Quotes
- Lt. Col. Mervin Willett Gonin DSO on the Holocaust
- Friedrich Nietzsche on Fighting Monsters
- Fyodor Dostoevsky (as Ivan Karamazov) on Evil
- Karl Marx on Religion
- J.P. Moreland on Postmodernism and Anger
- Mark Twain (as Huck Finn) on Ethics
- John Stuart Mill on Fallibility and Free Speech
- J.P. Moreland on Postmodernism
- Angus Menuge on Inference to the Best Explanation
- J.P. Moreland on Rival Worldviews
Popular in Papers
- The Euthanasia Debate: Understanding the Issues
- Aquinas versus Locke and Descartes on the Human Person and End-of-Life Ethics
- Utilitarianism and the Moral Life
- Philosophical Apologetics, the Church, and Contemporary Culture
- Scientific Creationism, Science, and Conceptual Problems
- Is Science a Threat or Help to Faith?
- Argument from Consciousness
- Complementarity, Agency Theory, and the God-of-the-Gaps
- Scientific Naturalism and the Unfalsifiable Myth of Evolution
- The Indispensability of Theological Meta-ethical Foundations for Morality
Random
- Alvin Plantinga on Christian Belief
- The Happiness Hypothesis
- William Faulkner on the Past
- Can We Be Good Without God?
- John Stott on Basic Christianity
- Francis A. Schaeffer on Blind Faith
- David Hume on Hard Reality vs. Faith
- John A.T. Robinson on Proving God
- Mortimer Adler on Love and Reading
- I.L. Cohen on DNA
