Ready To Die - An Essay About Society's Fear Of Death

[Era Might]

Here is an essay I wrote for a magazine. It wasn't published, but I offer it here for discussion, critique, etc. (I was prompted to post it by Chi Zhuzi's thread on gangs).

[quote][center][u][b]Ready To Die[/b][/u][/center]
[i][center]“I’m ready to die and nobody could save me.” --The Notorious B.I.G.
“I got questions ’bout your life if you so ready to die.” --De La Soul[/center][/i]



We are afraid to die.

The violently myopic sociopolitical visions on both the Left and the Right in America are rooted in this fear of death. It takes various forms: militarization and criminalization, emasculation and an idolization of living; but each of these are merely a veiled thanatophobia—ironic seeing as we are engaged in an ongoing mass-suicide. As machete-wielding mareros pour through the border, reaching even (gasp!) middle America, Christian conservatives make their last stand for the Second Amendment. Meanwhile, liberals loudly denounce war and torture, proclaiming a humanitarian gospel without all that nonsense about the kingdom of heaven suffering violence, and the violent bearing it away (Matthew 11:12). The renewal of society depends on our willingness to exorcise this fear of death which gives birth to the prisons, the wars, the politicians, the gangs, the economy, the suicides and the celebrities, in contemporary America.

Jacques Ellul has argued that the West clings to its ideals, even when it does not live up to them, and that this tension between ideal and reality in the West produces a neurotic personality and a bad conscience. The problem of violence in America perfectly exemplifies this tension. The most prominent defenders and promoters of the Second Amendment tend to be Christian conservatives. They are certainly more well-known for a zealous adherence to the Second Amendment than they are for Matthew 5:39—[i]turn the other cheek.[/i] The Right is heir to the civilizational reconciliation between Cross and Sword, which I will briefly review.

Martyrdom was the early Christian ideal and the ordinary Christian expectation. The only sword of the martyrs was [i]the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God (Ephesians 6:17).[/i]Theirs was not a humanist ideal; it certainly had nothing in common with the modern platitude [i]give peace a chance[/i]. Neither was it a Gandhian ideal, not being an experiment in truth, but rather an act of witness to the person of Christ. Martyrdom was a witness against the violent wickedness of this world, and a witness to the Eschaton, when all things will be made new.

Ivan Illich has showed how modern institutionalization arose in part because society corrupted the good into norms and values. Thus, the vocation of the Good Samaritan became a matter of moral obligation rather than an invitation to relationship. Institutions can fill a moral obligation to heal the injured Jew’s wounds, but only a person can enter into a relationship with him. In a similar way, I would like to suggest that over the centuries, martyrdom ceased to be regarded as an ordinary personal calling for each disciple, and became instead a decision to be evaluated on a sliding scale of norms and values (prudential considerations, social obligations, etc.); thus, martyrdom was left to the extraordinary few who could afford to dispense with the scale (e.g., Saints and missionaries).

Consider our perception of martyrdom today: except for the extraordinary few, martyrs today are seen as victims of a crime rather than bearers of a triumph. Take, for example, the plight of contemporary Christians persecuted by Muslims. Sympathizers (including Bishops) see these Christians as a religious minority in need of international defense. They implore the United Nations and the United States for protection. I certainly do not want to seem flippant about the situation, because these persecuted Christians are incredibly brave. But where is the boldness of the early martyrs? Bishops speak about Christians and Muslims living together peacefully. But this peace (which is imaginary, because the Muslim violence will not cease) depends on Christians keeping to themselves. Christ [i]came not to bring peace, but a sword[/i] (Matthew 10:34). This sword is the price Christians pay for scandalizing others by witnessing to the Gospel. But since the civilizational reconciliation between Cross and Sword, peace is the order of the day. In the evolution of the Christian West, the martyr gives way to the crusader, and the crusader gives way to the modern institutions (militaries and prisons) which preserve society’s norms and values through violence. The military subdues (and prisons imprison) for the sake of peace, but they do not convert the wicked. The mistake of the Christian Right is that it sees the Gospel as the other half of society’s violent institutions. As Ann Coulter expressed it on September 13th, 2001: “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” But Oscar Wilde sees past this:

[quote]To turn an interesting thief into a tedious honest man was not [Christ’s] aim. He would have thought little of the Prisoners’ Aid Society and other modern movements of the kind. The conversion of a publican into a Pharisee would not have seemed to him a great achievement. But in a manner not yet understood of the world he regarded sin and suffering as being in themselves beautiful holy things and modes of perfection.[/quote]

The Gospel is not a civilizational handbook. The early martyrs were transcendent witnesses against a violently wicked world. They were not religious minorities in need of international defense, because they were not civilians: they were soldiers in Christ’s army, and their sword was [i]the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God[/i] (Ephesians 6:17).

When this radical transcendence is lost, then Christianity becomes part of the status quo. The Christian Right has no answer to society’s violent wickedness, because it is too busy civilizing people. The US Constitution is a social guide for how to protect life and property; the Gospel is a personal guide for how to lose life and property. And here we see the fatal flaw in the Christian Right. It wants to defend Christianity’s place in society, but the only way it can do so is by using the Sword in service of the Cross, and as we know, [i]all who take the sword will perish by the sword[/i] (Matthew 26:52). The ironic thing, of course, is that the martyrs also perished by the sword, without taking it up themselves; but unlike social violence, martyrdom converts the wicked, it does not merely subdue them.

The Right is deathly afraid of the unsecured border because the mareros represent the violent wickedness which only martyrdom can answer. It is one thing for professional soldiers (like the extraordinary few) to go and do their duty, to subdue the enemy. But the threat of the unsecured border (and international terrorism) exposes the West’s fatal flaw. Wilde’s reformed tedious honest man has been integrated into a Western society where life and property are secure from men such as he used to be. There is no place for transcendent witness to Christ in such a society (except for the extraordinary few, who have been formally assigned a place as though in an orderly parking lot). The mareros are accustomed to a gang society that expects of them a radical commitment to wickedness. And the Right would have them become tedious honest men. Perhaps this is the sense in which we might consider Wilde’s assertion that Christ regarded sin and suffering as being in themselves beautiful holy things and modes of perfection. The mareros have experienced, in darkness and shadows, the joy of living and dying radically. These men could be the next St. Paul, that great martyr who once [i]breathed threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord[/i] (Acts 9:1). Instead, the mareros are expected to renounce a gang life which expects radical things of them, and be integrated into a society of tedious honest men. In its fear of the unsecured border, the Right ultimately fears that its tedious honest men will have to undertake the radical witness of martyrdom, or else face a powerless death at the hands of those who witness to a different radical order. The Right fears the deaths of its salesmen.

But what of the Left? The Left, of course, imagines itself as the bearer of progress, and in some historical sense this is true. I need not recapitulate the critiques of modern society and its institutions, critiques made so ably during the twentieth century. In theory, the Left attaches itself to such critiques, though the greatest critics (Illich, Ellul, Goodman) were those who looked equally askance at the Left and the Right. What more can be said about our social structures that these critics did not say? The plain truth of it is that American society survived the critiques of the twentieth century. The sense of impending doom during the 1960s and 1970s seems quaint now. Sure, we heard a lot from the Left during the Bush administration about an impending police state and other Really Terrible Fates. And some on the Right live in fear of a Socialist revolution led by President Obama. But Obama is the face of a faceless generation. The real control belongs neither to the Left nor the Right, but to the Mediocre Middle, whose chief motivation is fear of a fatal imbalance to the homeostasis of the social system. There are fringe groups on the Left and the Right that echo a bygone era of social upheaval, but the mainstream answers to the Mediocre Middle. The Left has to give lip service to change, and Obama was elected on the wave of that one word. What is it about change that enchants the Left?

The United States was founded by the Left of its day, so change is at the heart of American political culture. The abrupt disappearance of the ancient Mayan civilization baffles historians. The Mayan religion, of course, included human sacrifice. They killed themselves for what they believed to be a higher purpose. In American society, change is the chosen ritual. We prefer the dynasties of institutions to the dynasties of kings, and the right to change the institutional figures serves as a safety valve for the tensions that formerly lead to regicide. Once the institutions are established, however, (and the rise of institutions in the 19th century was also driven by the Left), true change becomes almost impossible. Change is ultimately about changing the politicians in office, not about changing what’s broken in society. As I said before, there is no further critique to be made about the existing structures; the Paul Goodmans of the world made those critiques admirably, and there is no reason to believe that new critics will change anything. I like to imagine that the Mayans were the one society to acknowledge when enough was enough, freely choosing to let their civilization die. The West had this opportunity during the twentieth century, when the critics exposed society and offered a bold new vision. The institutions survived the critics, the Left had no real vision, and the two merged together. (The only voices against institutions today come from the Right, such as homeschoolers).

Let me return to President Obama. The Right insults the dictators of the twentieth century when it ranks Obama with them. Those men knew what they were about, and they went about it. Asked on the campaign trail about abortion, Obama responded: “Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade.” This is a dictator?

Obama, of course, has to toe the line of the Mediocre Middle. The Left is unwilling to admit abortion in the same way that the Mayans admitted human sacrifice (even though abortion is just as much a religious ritual for the Left). Instead, it is couched in cowardice, as we see in Obama’s response. [i]Maybe a child dies, maybe not. Maybe it’s okay, maybe it’s wrong. Maybe it’s an important issue, but maybe I’m not qualified to speak on it.[/i] The Left doesn’t want to give too much an appearance of believing in Something. But even Christians cooperate with the Mediocre Middle. Instead of refusing to vote for any politician who supports abortion in any way, shape, or form (which would be a radical witness), Christians plays the system’s game and vote for pro-abortion Republicans because they support abortion in fewer circumstances than their Democratic opponents. The key to this game is not to upset the social homeostasis. There is no room in the game for anyone who is not willing to play, and that is what everyone fears: being shut out. If one group is truly shut out, then that threatens the entire system: a fatal flaw which everyone fears.

Why is the Left so quick to defend the victims of war and torture, and so pathologically zealous in its defense of abortion? Consider the “enemy” being feared. When the Right rails against illegal immigration, it fears the immigrants themselves (the Right is not merely angry at the government that has failed to secure the border). When the Left rails against war and torture, it is not merely out of concern for the innocent. The Left certainly desires peace, but that is because the Left has idolized living. The Left stands for whatever gives pleasure to the individual. The Left fears war and torture because they remind the Left that there is more at stake than merely living. Soldiers, terrorists, and mareros are willing to kill and die for these stakes. The Left wants to give peace a chance. But the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent bear it away (Matthew 11:12). The world is a violently wicked place, and there are only two ways to respond: with greater violence, or with martyrdom. Either course depends on believing in something that you are willing to defend. The Left will not die for anything because the Left has nothing to live for. It is committed to what Pope Benedict has called [i]the dictatorship of relativism[/i] (reflected in Obama’s response on abortion). In its loud protestations against war and torture, the Left reveals its fear of death: it wants absolute license and autonomy from Truth, but to have such a society people must kill and die in its defense, and people do not kill and die when there is nothing to believe in to kill and die for. All the Left has is change; it has nothing to defend so it blows with the wind, thinking up the most foul and despicable ways to tamper with society (not unlike Goodman’s delinquents whose delinquency is just a way to pass time).

The Left’s pathological commitment to abortion is its ultimate fear of death. It loudly protests war and torture because it wants to wish them away; they are unpleasant reminders that the world belongs to those who have something to live and die for. But in its vociferous support of abortion, the Left acknowledges that it has no future. Through the ideology of sexual revolution and abortion, the Left attempts to claim and control its fear of death. Marriage, family, self-dignity: none of these matter to the Left. The Left has no identity apart from contraception and abortion, because the Left’s identity is its death sentence. The Mayans believed that human sacrifice was necessary in order to go on living. Abortion serves likewise to the Left; living is everything to the Left, and anything that requires sacrifice and dying to self is loathsome, even the unborn child.

[i]Show me a culture that despises virginity, and I’ll show you a culture that despises children (Mark Shea).[/i] The Left-dominated news media has had a field day with the sexual corruption of Catholic clergy. Here again, there is no pure concern for the innocent victims of evil men. Celibacy is a certain kind of martyrdom, serving as an eschatological witness both against the violent wickedness of this world and for the Resurrection of man: body and soul. Gandhi could not be a Christian martyr, but I think he understood the essence of what it means to be one. His non-violence was inseparable from his moral asceticism (including his condemnation of contraception). Yet the Left reveres Gandhi while vilifying the Catholic Priesthood. Why? Because witness to Christ is a unique scandal. The Gospel is a witness against [i]the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life[/i] (1John 2:16). Look around you; contemporary America is drowning in these lusts: whether through pornography (which destroys our ability to be men and women), through the cult of celebrity, through the alienation of social communication media, through suburban suicides and ghetto fatalism. Christian asceticism and martyrdom are the Left’s greatest fears, because a true Christian witness points to the Eschaton, when [i]the world passes away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides for ever[/i] (1John 2:17). Christians are most powerful when they are powerless. The Left has already sold its soul. The Right understands the basic reality that Truth must be defended with your life; but the West has no hope in the Right because the Right does not understand that the only unique contribution Christians have for society is non-violent martyrdom in witness to Christ. So long as the martyr’s witness remains part of a civilizational order, the West has no answer to the violent wickedness enveloping and destroying it.

So what is my utopian advice for society? I do not ask that you embrace ascetic poverty. I do not ask that you stop murdering your wombs. I do not ask that you convert rather than conquer the wicked. I do not ask that you give the mareros a radical witness which resonates with their experience. I do not ask that you eschew institutions for community, communication for communion, civilization for salvation. I do not even ask that you repent and believe in the Gospel.

I ask only that you wear white to my funeral.[/quote]

Edited September 19, 2010 by Era Might

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1284902185' post='2174518']
Here is an essay I wrote for a magazine. It wasn't published, but I offer it here for discussion, critique, etc. (I was prompted to post it by Chi Zhuzi's thread on gangs).
[/quote]

A very good article, overall. I do have one contention, however. Your section: "Meanwhile, liberals loudly denounce war and torture, proclaiming a humanitarian gospel without all that nonsense about the kingdom of heaven suffering violence, and the violent bearing it away (Matthew 11:12)."

What do you mean by the "violent bearing the kingdom of heaven away?" I don't believe Matthew is speaking of the kingdom of heaven as a synonym for "salvation," and that "salvation favors the physically violent." I think, as Avram Yehoshua thinks, that Matthew is speaking about the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, meaning, Christendom: the rule of Christ the King in the hearts of men. The violent "bearing it away" does not seem to be an attempt to say "the kingdom of heaven belongs to violent men," as it is the peacemakers who are called "blessed." Now, all violence, even on the part of tyrants, is intended to bring about "peace" of one kind or another, to a greater or lesser degree. But despite the [i]intent[/i] of its use, violence will only achieve a real peace (though not the purest type of peace, in which violence is never required in the first place) is if it is, in and of itself, [i]just[/i] violence: violence that stops a [i]physical [/i]threat of an aggressor.

The way I read Matthew 11:12, the violent are always trying to procure an [i]earthly[/i] salvation, as your whole article is trying to prove. They're always trying to create a heaven on earth. And when the square peg that is human nature doesn't fit into their round hole idea of what human nature [i]should[/i] be, well, they have to use a [i]hammer[/i] to [i]make [/i]it fit. The Millenialists, the National Socialists, the Communists, the Green Movement. All of them: Because their plans and means to create heaven on earth are not in accordance with God's plans and means, their means will be violent, and thus the violent will always "bear away the Kingdom of God." In other words, they will make it impossible for the world to enjoy the[i] true[/i] Kingdom of God on earth. Physical laws say that you can't collect water in a fist, and metaphysical laws say that you can't bring about the Kingdom of God through violent means, because God's Kingdom is either voluntarily accepted by the individual, or it is not. There is no forcing anyone to accept it.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 19, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Paddington]

Nice, Era. I don't think I understood everything, but I agree that martyrdom is more attractive and credible than a mixture of martyrdom and violent coercion.

[Chi Zhuzi]

[quote]So what is my utopian advice for society? I do not ask that you embrace ascetic poverty. I do not ask that you stop murdering your wombs. I do not ask that you convert rather than conquer the wicked. I do not ask that you give the mareros a radical witness which resonates with their experience. I do not ask that you eschew institutions for community, communication for communion, civilization for salvation. I do not even ask that you repent and believe in the Gospel.

I ask only that you wear white to my funeral.[/quote]

Wow!! That was a powerful close.

That was one well written essay. Awesome.

For all I know you may be right about some or everything. But I differ with you on some points. My impression of Jesus in the New Testament was that he was a moral conservative. Very much so actually. He also seemed to preach fear of hell more than any other prophet of the Bible. But that said, the depiction of Jesus in the New Testament doesn't come across to me as a person [i]shocked [/i]by human sins.

So, I guess I'm not sure I would suggest Jesus viewed sin and suffering as holy. I do tend to think, from my own experiences in life and from my own intuition, that sin and suffering are not outside the graces of God, to be used to transform the human agent, for the person's own benefit, drawing nearer to God, or perhaps even for a greater purpose. Supposedly, Christianity is filled with these paradoxes, not least of which being the whole theological narrative about Jesus Christ. But the whole story of Clovis and Charles Martel fits into this as well.

But you make some very interesting points throughout that essay to be pondered. I had to look up "thanataphobia" because I've never in my life heard that word before. :lol4:Thanks for adding to my vocabulary.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1284908355' post='2174555']What do you mean by the "violent bearing the kingdom of heaven away?" I don't believe Matthew is speaking of the kingdom of heaven as a synonym for "salvation," and that "salvation favors the physically violent." I think, as Avram Yehoshua thinks, that Matthew is speaking about the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, meaning, Christendom: the rule of Christ the King in the hearts of men. The violent "bearing it away" does not seem to be an attempt to say "the kingdom of heaven belongs to violent men," as it is the peacemakers who are called "blessed."[/quote]
As I understand the phrase "the violent bear it away," the "violent" people being referred to are not the violent of this world, but rather, Christians. In other words, the kingdom of heaven "suffers violence" from this world, and Christians enter the kingdom by "bearing" this violence in witness to Christ. Also, Christians do violence to themselves (in the form of asceticism); Christians die to themselves and live to Christ.

The reason why I use this verse about the kingdom of heaven suffering violence and the violent bearing it away, is because it is the essence of Christian ascetism. We enter the kingdom of heaven by away of the Cross. The violence of this world is in the service of saving lives. But Christians are supposed to be witnesses to the Eschaton, the world to come. "For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it" (Matthew 16:25). This radical message of the Gospel is incompatible with both the Left and the Right in America, though it's incompatible for different reasons (and my essay is an attempt to explore how it is incompatible with the Left and the Right).

[quote]Now, all violence, even on the part of tyrants, is intended to bring about "peace" of one kind or another, to a greater or lesser degree. But despite the [i]intent[/i] of its use, violence will only achieve a real peace (though not the purest type of peace, in which violence is never required in the first place) is if it is, in and of itself, [i]just[/i] violence: violence that stops a [i]physical [/i]threat of an aggressor.[/quote]
I disagree that violence with good intentions is of a different nature than violence with bad intentions. Violence is violence. It always has the same result: it furthers the logic and the power of violence in the world. Now, I'm not saying that violence is not necessary in this fallen world. Just the opposite. What I'm saying is that violence is the logic of this fallen world. This world knows only death and violence, and that is how this world operates. The power of this world is maintained by violence; the power of this world is about who is stronger. Why is the United States the only superpower in the world? Because it has all the power of violence (military, economic, propaganda, etc.) to support its place in the world. My point is not that this world can do without violence. Rather, my point is that the Gospel is a vocation to witness to another world, to the Eschaton (the world to come). When Christians become the defenders of civilization, then the Eschatological vocation of the Gospel is forgotten: the crusader replaces the martyr, and eventually (when the Christian shell of society is secularized) massive violent institutions (militaries and prisons) replace the crusader. Thus, we live in an American society where we foolishly (though sincerely) believe that you can bomb people for their own good. If you're going to bomb people, at least don't do so under the foolish delusion that you are helping them, that you are doing something Christian. Recognize your violence for what it is: the irrational (even if necessary) logic of this world.

[quote]The way I read Matthew 11:12, the violent are always trying to procure an [i]earthly[/i] salvation, as your whole article is trying to prove. They're always trying to create a heaven on earth. And when the square peg that is human nature doesn't fit into their round hole idea of what human nature [i]should[/i] be, well, they have to use a [i]hammer[/i] to [i]make [/i]it fit. The Millenialists, the National Socialists, the Communists, the Green Movement. All of them: Because their plans and means to create heaven on earth are not in accordance with God's plans and means, their means will be violent, and thus the violent will always "bear away the Kingdom of God." In other words, they will make it impossible for the world to enjoy the[i] true[/i] Kingdom of God on earth. Physical laws say that you can't collect water in a fist, and metaphysical laws say that you can't bring about the Kingdom of God through violent means, because God's Kingdom is either voluntarily accepted by the individual, or it is not. There is no forcing anyone to accept it.[/quote]
Yes, the Nazis and the Communists thought they were the means to an earthly salvation. But so do Americans. Consider, for example, the Peace Corps. In the American conception of "peace," peace requires that America be the big brother that "develops" the rest of the world. Thus we create something like the Peace Corps. We imagine that we are doing good by going to these other countries, but what are we really doing? We are committing an act of violence, in the sense that we are planting seeds of propaganda to bring the rest of the world under our care. And when certain nations reject our benevolent imperialism, and turn to other ideologies (e.g., Communism), then we turn to other institutions to handle our "benevolent" activity in those countries. When the Peace Corps fails, we send the military (as we did in Latin America during the 20th century to try to prevent the spread of Communism there). The same thing happens domestically. Once delinquent youth spurn our "benevolent" schooling system, then in many cases they are alienated from the mainstream society, and we create another massive institution of violence (prison) to "take care of the problem."

The main idea I'm trying to get across in my essay is that Christians only corrupt the Gospel when they try to attach it to these "earthly salvations" as you call them. It doesn't matter if it's the Peace Corps or the Hitler Youth; when Christians are in the service of civilization rather than salvation, then they forget what their true vocation is. They become like ancient Israel wandering in the desert, forgetful that the desert is not their home.

Edited September 19, 2010 by Era Might

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1284937535' post='2174722']
As I understand the phrase "the violent bear it away," the "violent" people being referred to are not the violent of this world, but rather, Christians. In other words, the kingdom of heaven "suffers violence" from this world, and Christians enter the kingdom by "bearing" this violence in witness to Christ. Also, Christians do violence to themselves (in the form of asceticism); Christians die to themselves and live to Christ.

The reason why I use this verse about the kingdom of heaven suffering violence and the violent bearing it away, is because it is the essence of Christian ascetism. We enter the kingdom of heaven by away of the Cross. The violence of this world is in the service of saving lives. But Christians are supposed to be witnesses to the Eschaton, the world to come. "For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it" (Matthew 16:25). This radical message of the Gospel is incompatible with both the Left and the Right in America, though it's incompatible for different reasons (and my essay is an attempt to explore how it is incompatible with the Left and the Right).


I disagree that violence with good intentions is of a different nature than violence with bad intentions. Violence is violence. It always has the same result: it furthers the logic and the power of violence in the world. Now, I'm not saying that violence is not necessary in this fallen world. Just the opposite. What I'm saying is that violence is the logic of this fallen world. This world knows -only death and violence, and that is how this world operates. The power of this world is maintained by violence; the power of this world is about who is stronger. Why is the United States the only superpower in the world? Because it has all the power of violence (military, economic, propaganda, etc.) to support its place in the world. My point is not that this world can do without violence. Rather, my point is that the Gospel is a vocation to witness to another world, to the Eschaton (the world to come). When Christians become the defenders of civilization, then the Eschatological vocation of the Gospel is forgotten: the crusader replaces the martyr, and eventually (when the Christian shell of society is secularized) massive violent institutions (militaries and prisons) replace the crusader. Thus, we live in an American society where we foolishly (though sincerely) believe that you can bomb people for their own good. If you're going to bomb people, at least don't do so under the foolish delusion that you are helping them, that you are doing something Christian. Recognize your violence for what it is: the irrational (even if necessary) logic of this world.


Yes, the Nazis and the Communists thought they were the means to an earthly salvation. But so do Americans. Consider, for example, the Peace Corps. In the American conception of "peace," peace requires that America be the big brother that "develops" the rest of the world. Thus we create something like the Peace Corps. We imagine that we are doing good by going to these other countries, but what are we really doing? We are committing an act of violence, in the sense that we are planting seeds of propaganda to bring the rest of the world under our care. And when certain nations reject our benevolent imperialism, and turn to other ideologies (e.g., Communism), then we turn to other institutions to handle our "benevolent" activity in those countries. When the Peace Corps fails, we send the military (as we did in Latin America during the 20th century to try to prevent the spread of Communism there). The same thing happens domestically. Once delinquent youth spurn our "benevolent" schooling system, then in many cases they are alienated from the mainstream society, and we create another massive institution of violence (prison) to "take care of the problem."

The main idea I'm trying to get across in my essay is that Christians only corrupt the Gospel when they try to attach it to these "earthly salvations" as you call them. It doesn't matter if it's the Peace Corps or the Hitler Youth; when Christians are in the service of civilization rather than salvation, then they forget what their true vocation is. They become like ancient Israel wandering in the desert, forgetful that the desert is not their home.
[/quote]

Era, sounds like we're on the same page.

~Sternhauser

[Era Might]

[quote name='Chi Zhuzi' timestamp='1284930394' post='2174679']My impression of Jesus in the New Testament was that he was a moral conservative. Very much so actually. He also seemed to preach fear of hell more than any other prophet of the Bible. But that said, the depiction of Jesus in the New Testament doesn't come across to me as a person [i]shocked [/i]by human sins.[/quote]
I wouldn't call Christ a "moral conservative." The Scribes and the Pharisees were the "moral conservatives." They wanted to uphold the Law as they understood it. Christ did not abolish the Law; he turned it on its head. He revealed the transcendent fulfillment of everything that the Scribes and Pharisees were trying to "conserve." We see this, especially, in the Sermon on the Mount, when Christ keeps repeating the phrase, "You have heard it said...but I say to you..." The Holiness that Christ reveals utterly transcends even a perfect keeping of the Law.

[quote]So, I guess I'm not sure I would suggest Jesus viewed sin and suffering as holy. I do tend to think, from my own experiences in life and from my own intuition, that sin and suffering are not outside the graces of God, to be used to transform the human agent, for the person's own benefit, drawing nearer to God, or perhaps even for a greater purpose. Supposedly, Christianity is filled with these paradoxes, not least of which being the whole theological narrative about Jesus Christ. But the whole story of Clovis and Charles Martel fits into this as well.[/quote]
I do not mean that Christ literally saw sin as holy. I won't speak for Oscar Wilde, but what I mean when I use his quote in my essay is that "moral conservatism" is as foreign to the Gospel as "moral relativism." The Gospel is a transcendent vocation. It shatters the legalism that undergirds the ideology of "moral conservatism." Christ is said to have told St. Faustina Kowalska that "the greater the sinner, the greater the right he has to my mercy." There is something mysteriously special about sinners. Christ says to the Jewish religious authorities, "Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you" (Matthew 21:31). And I daresay that MS-13 gang members are closer to the kingdom of God than the "tedious honest men" that Oscar Wilde speaks of. Many of these gang members at least have a radical commitment to evil; they are not lukewarm, and thus there is soil in their hearts for a radical conversion to Christ. A lukewarm "tedious honest man" is incapable of living a radically transcendent life.

Christ says in the book of Revelation: "I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth." (Revelation 3:15-16).

Edited September 19, 2010 by Era Might

[rkwright]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1284937535' post='2174722']
The main idea I'm trying to get across in my essay is that Christians only corrupt the Gospel when they try to attach it to these "earthly salvations" as you call them. It doesn't matter if it's the Peace Corps or the Hitler Youth; when Christians are in the service of civilization rather than salvation, then they forget what their true vocation is. They become like ancient Israel wandering in the desert, forgetful that the desert is not their home.
[/quote]

I'm back and forth and what you're saying. Some of it sounds ok, but some of it seems off - at least to me.

Obviously as Christians our true home is heaven. But Jesus' message was also concerned with very Earthly realities - feed the poor, clothe the naked, ransom the captive. These are obviously focused towards salvation - but they are duties to be performed here on earth. Even Jesus stood up for the woman about to be stoned to death.

Your essay almost has a hint of apathy in it. Why worry about anything on this Earth, lets all be marytrs - and let those who are suffering suffer, even dying die. I can't believe that the Gospel message is about letting the man robbed on the side of the road sit there and die - praying for his soul of course - and not being the good samaratian. Love is an action.

That being said, it gets blurry when you start killing people in order to save others.

Still sorting this out...

[rkwright]

We shouldn't leave out St. Thomas on this...

[quote]Article 1. Whether it is always sinful to wage war?
Objection 1. It would seem that it is always sinful to wage war. Because punishment is not inflicted except for sin. Now those who wage war are threatened by Our Lord with punishment, according to Matthew 26:52: "All that take the sword shall perish with the sword." Therefore all wars are unlawful.

Objection 2. Further, whatever is contrary to a Divine precept is a sin. But war is contrary to a Divine precept, for it is written (Matthew 5:39): "But I say to you not to resist evil"; and (Romans 12:19): "Not revenging yourselves, my dearly beloved, but give place unto wrath." Therefore war is always sinful.

Objection 3. Further, nothing, except sin, is contrary to an act of virtue.

But war is contrary to peace. Therefore war is always a sin.

Objection 4. Further, the exercise of a lawful thing is itself lawful, as is evident in scientific exercises. But warlike exercises which take place in tournaments are forbidden by the Church, since those who are slain in these trials are deprived of ecclesiastical burial. Therefore it seems that war is a sin in itself.

On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon on the son of the centurion [Ep. ad Marcel. cxxxviii]: "If the Christian Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel would rather have been counselled to cast aside their arms, and to give up soldiering altogether. On the contrary, they were told: 'Do violence to no man . . . and be content with your pay' [Luke 3:14. If he commanded them to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering."

I answer that, In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Romans 13:4): "He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil"; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Psalm 81:4): "Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner"; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): "The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority."

Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (QQ. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): "A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly."

Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. [The words quoted are to be found not in St. Augustine's works, but Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1): "True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good." For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): "The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war."

Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 70): "To take the sword is to arm oneself in order to take the life of anyone, without the command or permission of superior or lawful authority." On the other hand, to have recourse to the sword (as a private person) by the authority of the sovereign or judge, or (as a public person) through zeal for justice, and by the authority, so to speak, of God, is not to "take the sword," but to use it as commissioned by another, wherefore it does not deserve punishment. And yet even those who make sinful use of the sword are not always slain with the sword, yet they always perish with their own sword, because, unless they repent, they are punished eternally for their sinful use of the sword.

Reply to Objection 2. Such like precepts, as Augustine observes (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 19), should always be borne in readiness of mind, so that we be ready to obey them, and, if necessary, to refrain from resistance or self-defense. Nevertheless it is necessary sometimes for a man to act otherwise for the common good, or for the good of those with whom he is fighting. Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Marcellin. cxxxviii): "Those whom we have to punish with a kindly severity, it is necessary to handle in many ways against their will. For when we are stripping a man of the lawlessness of sin, it is good for him to be vanquished, since nothing is more hopeless than the happiness of sinners, whence arises a guilty impunity, and an evil will, like an internal enemy."

Reply to Objection 3. Those who wage war justly aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to peace, except to the evil peace, which Our Lord "came not to send upon earth" (Matthew 10:34). Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Bonif. clxxxix): "We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace."

Reply to Objection 4. Manly exercises in warlike feats of arms are not all forbidden, but those which are inordinate and perilous, and end in slaying or plundering. On olden times warlike exercises presented no such danger, and hence they were called "exercises of arms" or "bloodless wars," as Jerome states in an epistle [Reference incorrect: cf. Veget., De Re Milit. i].
[/quote]

[Era Might]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1284988872' post='2174834']I can't believe that the Gospel message is about letting the man robbed on the side of the road sit there and die - praying for his soul of course - and not being the good samaratian. Love is an action. [/quote]
Oh, I absolutely agree with you here. But consider the implications of what you're saying: the act of helping the man beaten on the side of the road is itself a risk. You may be beaten and robbed as well. That is the Christian risk. The "love in action" that the Gospel calls us to is very personal action. That is just the point of my essay. So long as Christians are sidekicks to society's institutions of violence, then Christians have no answer to something like gang violence. So long as Christians avoid the personal risk of the Gospel, and instead choose to act through society's institutions of violence, then Christians are merely citizens of this world like everyone else. The radical "love in action" of the Gospel becomes just some unrealistic ideal reserved to "the extraordinary few" as I call them in my essay.

That is why I think Oscar Wilde criticizes something like the "Prisoners' Aid Society" in the quote I give from him in my essay. There is something disingenuous about preaching to someone in prison. Where were you when the prisoner was in the streets? Why did you not go to him then? Because you didn't want to take the risky "love in action" of the Gospel. You waited for society's institution of violence (prison) to restrain the man, and only then, when you knew there was no risk of danger, did you go and visit the man. Thus, something beautiful (visiting a man in prison) becomes something disingenuous (because you call the prisoner to radical conversion when you yourself do not live the Gospel in all its radical riskiness).

Gang members risk their lives every day for the wickedness of gang life. That's a whole lot more risk taken, in my opinion, than most American Christians take. How can Christians expect to bring someone like a gang member to radical conversion, when Christians themselves are merely "tedious honest men" (to use the phrase of Oscar Wilde).

Edited September 20, 2010 by Era Might

[Chi Zhuzi]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1284994774' post='2174855']
Oh, I absolutely agree with you here. But consider the implications of what you're saying: the act of helping the man beaten on the side of the road is itself a risk. You may be beaten and robbed as well. That is the Christian risk. The "love in action" that the Gospel calls us to is very personal action. That is just the point of my essay. So long as Christians are sidekicks to society's institutions of violence, then Christians have no answer to something like gang violence. So long as Christians avoid the personal risk of the Gospel, and instead choose to act through society's institutions of violence, then Christians are merely citizens of this world like everyone else. The radical "love in action" of the Gospel becomes just some unrealistic ideal reserved to "the extraordinary few" as I call them in my essay.
[b]
That is why I think Oscar Wilde criticizes something like the "Prisoners' Aid Society" in the quote I give from him in my essay. There is something disingenuous about preaching to someone in prison. Where were you when the prisoner was in the streets? Why did you not go to him then? Because you didn't want to take the risky "love in action" of the Gospel. You waited for society's institution of violence (prison) to restrain the man, and only then, when you knew there was no risk of danger, did you go and visit the man. Thus, something beautiful (visiting a man in prison) becomes something disingenuous (because you call the prisoner to radical conversion when you yourself do not live the Gospel in all its radical riskiness).

Gang members risk their lives every day for the wickedness of gang life. That's a whole lot more courage, in my opinion, than most Christians have. How can Christians expect to call someone like a gang member to radical conversion, when Christians themselves are merely "tedious honest men" (to use the phrase of Oscar Wilde).[/b]
[/quote]

You give no small challenge to Christians, Era. lol

But hey, what's those famous sibling Liberation Theologians from Brazil? The Boff brothers I think? Anyways.... one of the brothers in a book he authored, stated that Evangelical Protestants have made large progress in conversions in Brazil (and throughout Latin America) partly because many of them go to the street to the lowliest of Brazilian society, and apparently he was suggesting, that this is a rare occurrence within Catholicism.

What really irks me, is most American Catholics I've seen complain online about shrinking Catholicism (usually "conservative" in label), have always focused on Western Europe, and seemed overly concerned about converting its middle-class sector that wants nothing to do with religion, yet! they are silent on the sweep of Protestantism throughout Brazil and Latin America.

I know you suggest Catholicism should not be so focused on the institutions of the world, but I'm not so sure I can accept that. Maybe it's just my pride. I find it an embarrassment Catholic Italians needed to immigrate to the U.S. in the past, that Catholic nations (France is militantly secular so doesn't count), in terms of demographics at least, are weaker than historical Protestant nations. The state of Latin America offends me on a number of levels: Catholic and mulatto (mixed-race).

Violence and political corruption are the single greatest threat and oppressive forces throughout Latin America - not condoms. The only reason the Vatican does not understand this in their belly, is not because they are holy people, far from it, they are normal people affected by their sociological surrounding, in other words the Vatican is not located in Detroit or Caracas, if it were, they'd be launching a crusade and moralizing from the roof tops. Violence became a concern to the Cardinals in the Vatican when a Cartel hitman, young a dressed like any 20 year old Chicago, gunned down a Bishop or Cardinal, in where was it? Colombia if I remember correctly.

Have you ever seen the documentary, [i]"To Send a Bullet"[/i]? You can watch it on youtube if you haven't. That the English translation of the Brazilian Portuguese title. U.S. law enforcement fear that what's going on there, in Brazil, Venezuela, and Mexico... is headed the U.S. way. And once it starts, if it gets momentum, there will be no stopping it. I almost wish God Speed to it. Then the many self-righteous Americans segregated safely in their peaceful neighborhood (virtual other worlds) will no where my rage partly stems from. Welcome into the home of Satan. Now you must fight your way out. No cop can help you, and no one in the world cares.

One of those cops in Sao Paulo assigned to the kidnapping team, has been shot something like 6 or 12 separate times. It was crazy! U.S. cops don't go through that. Sao Paulo a city over 11 million or so, has a kidnapping at a rate of one per day. The city has about 30 cops assigned to it's kidnapping squad! Talk about blessed to be living in the U.S. with a well financed police force.

All that said, I hear you on the lukewarm thing, and you've said some pretty deep things. Kudos.

(last year, Arizona became the kidnapping state of the world, for the first time in history, mainly due to Mexican cartels, but black gangsters seem to have learned from them too)

[rkwright]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1284994774' post='2174855']
Oh, I absolutely agree with you here. But consider the implications of what you're saying: the act of helping the man beaten on the side of the road is itself a risk. You may be beaten and robbed as well. That is the Christian risk. The "love in action" that the Gospel calls us to is very personal action. That is just the point of my essay. So long as Christians are sidekicks to society's institutions of violence, then Christians have no answer to something like gang violence. So long as Christians avoid the personal risk of the Gospel, and instead choose to act through society's institutions of violence, then Christians are merely citizens of this world like everyone else. The radical "love in action" of the Gospel becomes just some unrealistic ideal reserved to "the extraordinary few" as I call them in my essay.

That is why I think Oscar Wilde criticizes something like the "Prisoners' Aid Society" in the quote I give from him in my essay. There is something disingenuous about preaching to someone in prison. Where were you when the prisoner was in the streets? Why did you not go to him then? Because you didn't want to take the risky "love in action" of the Gospel. You waited for society's institution of violence (prison) to restrain the man, and only then, when you knew there was no risk of danger, did you go and visit the man. Thus, something beautiful (visiting a man in prison) becomes something disingenuous (because you call the prisoner to radical conversion when you yourself do not live the Gospel in all its radical riskiness).

Gang members risk their lives every day for the wickedness of gang life. That's a whole lot more risk taken, in my opinion, than most American Christians take. How can Christians expect to bring someone like a gang member to radical conversion, when Christians themselves are merely "tedious honest men" (to use the phrase of Oscar Wilde).
[/quote]

Maybe just some points of clairification.

This last bit sounded very reasonable and realistic to me.

Here is something I still have an issue with:

You make it seem like we should sit, watch, and pray for those who were being oppressed and tell them "hey don't worry - you're about to be a maytr". Do we stand and watch as the kid is being beaten by 10 gang members?

Now, if we decide to put love in action, say go help the kid. Now its 2 on 10 - have you really done anything other than put yourself at risk, and yes you've become a marytr as well.

What if you called the "police" - the instution of violence. They arrest the 10 men, you're unharmed, the 1 kid is ok (presumably with a few bruises) and perhaps you've stopped the gang from further violence.

What is your take on this hypo?

[dairygirl4u2c]

...

Edited September 20, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

i dont someone who has a radical dedication to evil is better than the lukewarm. im not sure the lukewarm guy is better, i just dont see one as better. i do give general sentiment to the idea that indifference might just be worse than hate, etc, cause one is based on passion which often lies with some sort of truth. but someone who does evil, by definition, is intending something wrong, sin. that can't be better than just being indifferent.
hate doesn't necessarily include an intention to hate despite knowing it's wrong. sin does include that, and that's evil in my mind.
sure, many who appear otbe bad and do bad things though.., they may very well be not nearly as bad as the lukewarm.

[Sternhauser]

[quote]"If the Christian Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel would rather have been counselled to cast aside their arms, and to give up soldiering altogether. On the contrary, they were told: 'Do violence to no man . . . and be content with your pay' [Luke 3:14. If he commanded them to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering."[/quote]

"If the Christian Religion forbade slavery altogether, the slaveowners would rather have been counselled to set free their slaves, and to give up slavery altogether. On the contrary, slaves were told 'Be subject to your masters.' If Paul commanded them to be subject to their masters, he did not forbid slavery."

~Sternhauser