Obedient from the heart

Today's quotation from the "40 Day Journey With Dietrich Bonhoeffer":

Cheap grace is the mortal enemy of our church. Our struggle today is for costly grace.

Cheap grace means grace as bargain-basement goods, cut-rate forgive­ness, cut-rate comfort, cut-rate sacraments; grace as the church's inexhaustible pantry, from which it is doled out by careless hands without hesitation or limit. It is grace without a price, without cost...

Cheap grace means grace as a doctrine, as principle, as system. It means forgiveness of sins as a general truth; it means God's love as merely a Christian idea of God. Those who affirm it have already had their sins forgiven. The church that teaches this doctrine of grace thereby conveys such grace upon itself. The world finds in this church a cheap cover-up for its sins, for which it shows no remorse and from which it has even less desire to be free. Cheap grace is, thus, denial of God's living Word, denial of the incarnation of the word of God.

Cheap grace means justification of sin but not of the sinner. Because grace alone does everything, everything can stay in its old ways. "Our action is in vain." The world remains world and we remain sinners "even in the best of lives." Thus, the Christian should live the same way the world does. In all things the Christian should go along with the world and not venture...to live a different life under grace from that under sin...

Cheap grace is that which we bestow on ourselves.

Cheap grace is preaching forgiveness without repentance; it is baptism without the discipline of community; it is the Lord's Supper without confession of sin; it is absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without the living, incarnate Jesus Christ.

What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.
[Romans 6:15-18]

Day 17 (6/17/2012) - 40 Day Journey Dietrich Bonhoeffer - Bible Gateway Devotionals

The fortunate effect of religion

I'm reading Gertrude Himmelfarb's The Moral Imagination: From Edmund Burke to Lionel Trilling, a collection of essays about various 19th and 20th century personages. I've come to her essay about John Stuart Mill, "The Other Mill," that is, the Mill before and after On Liberty — a somewhat different Mill than the one in that book. Mill described himself as a ""rational sceptic" with respect to Christianity. This passage is about the late Mill's opinion of religion [the words between quotation marks and those indented are Mill's]:

...[I]t is precisely when reason is strong that "the imagination may safely follow its own end," doing its best to "make life pleasant and lovely inside the castle," secure in the fortifications erected by reason outside. This combination of reason and imagination gives rise to an "indulgence of hope" with regard both to the existence of God and the immortality of man — a hope that is "legitimate and philosophically defensible" as well as of considerable human benefit.

It makes life and human nature a far greater thing to the feelings, and gives greater strength as well as greater solemnity to all the sentiments which are awakened within us by our fellow-creatures and by mankind at large. It allays the sense of that irony of Nature which is so painfully felt when we see the exertions and sacrifices of a life culminating in the formation of a wise and noble mind, only to disappear from the world when the time has just arrived at which the world seems about to begin reaping the benefit of it.

It is not only the idea of immortality that has this humanizing and elevating effect; it is the idea of God as well, the imaginative conception of a "morally perfect Being" who has "his eyes on us and cares for our good," and who provides human beings with the standard of excellence by which they regulate their characters and lives, Moreover, it is not only God that serves this purpose but the "Divine Person" of Christ.

For it is Christ, rather than God, whom Christianity has held up to believers as the pattern of perfection for humanity. It is the God incarnate, more than the God of the Jews or of Nature, who being idealized has taken so great and salutary a hold on the modern mind.... About the life and sayings of Jesus there is a stamp of personal originality combined with profundity of insight, which if we abandon the idle expectation of finding scientific precision where something very different was aimed at, must place the Prophet of Nazareth, even in the estimation of those who have no belief in his inspiration, in the very first rank of the men of sublime genius of whom our species can boast.

These reflections, Mill makes it clear, are those of a "rational sceptic," who realizes that after all that rational criticism can do by way of disputing the "evidences" of religion (revelation, miracles, the supernatural), what remains is the undoubted evidence of the fortunate effect of religion on character and morality. Conventional religion can thus supplement that "purely human religion" called the Religion of Humanity, fortifying it with those "supernatural hopes" that are allowed even to a rational skeptic like himself.

By orthodox religious standards, this "indulgence of hope" is an attenuated religion, perhaps no more than a will to believe. But it is so movingly and eloquently expressed as to have almost the force and status of genuine belief, Certainly in tone and substance, "Theism" stands in dramatic contrast to the view of religion presented in On Liberty, which was not so much skeptical as hostile. ....

For all its inadequacy it is a rather more approving attitude toward religion than that expressed by today's "new" atheists.

Gertrude Himmelfarb, "The Other Mill," The Moral Imagination: From Edmund Burke to Lionel Trilling

Unvisited tombs

.... Her finely-touched spirit had still its fine issues, though they were not widely visible. Her full nature...spent itself in channels which had no great name on the earth. But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs. [George Eliot, Middlemarch]

Gertrude Himmelfarb, The Moral Imagination: From Edmund Burke to Lionel Trilling

Eric Liddell

The C.S. Lewis Institute provides a fine biographical sketch of Eric Liddell, Scot, Christian missionary, and Olympic Gold Medalist. It gives context to Chariots of Fire and portrays a remarkable man.

I found the following interesting, particularly in view of the controversies surrounding the witness of Tebow and Jeremy Lin:

.... In the fall of 1921, Eric and his brother Robert played rugby for Edinburgh University. While only five-foot-nine and 155 pounds, Eric’s speed and determination made him an instant rugby star at the wing position. He was selected to play on the Scottish national team in 1922. He and his former schoolboy partner, Leslie Gracie, made a powerful “Gracie-Liddell Wing” combination. Over the course of his short rugby career, Eric played for Scotland in seven games and was on the winning side six times. The greatest win was against Wales, which Scotland hadn’t beaten since 1870. That win helped make Eric Liddell a hero among the working class of Scotland who admired the toughness and skill required to be a world-class rugby player.

Eric’s status as a Scottish national team rugby player and Scottish sprint champion gave him the platform that he would soon use to further the gospel of Jesus Christ. In the spring of 1923, one of Robert’s friends, D.P. Thomsen, was struggling to find a way to reach the working class men and miners of Scotland. Noticing the men’s passion for rugby, he thought to ask Eric if he would be willing to come to a meeting hall in Armadale and speak of his faith, though he knew that introverted Eric rarely talked openly about his Christian faith.

D.P. traveled to Edinburgh and went straight to the Liddells’ home. He was greeted by Robert; when asked if Eric would speak at an evangelistic meeting, Robert said, “I think you’d better ask him yourself.” A few minutes later, when Eric came in from a run, D.P. shared his vision. Would Eric address the men? Eric dropped his head for a time, reflected upon the question, and then replied, “All right—I’ll do it.” That response was to change the course of Eric’s life. In fact, the next morning, before he could second-guess himself, he received a letter from his sister sent from China weeks before; it ended with Isaiah 41:10, “Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness.” This confirmed his decision to use the platform of sports fame to share his faith openly. He would never look back and would proclaim his love for Jesus with enthusiasm and boldness in the days to come.

Liddell would write later about this moment of saying yes to D.P.’s request,

My whole life had been one of keeping out of public duties but the leading of Christ seemed now to be in the opposite direction and I shrank from going forward. At this time I finally decided to put it all on Christ—after all if He called me to do it, then He would have to supply the necessary power. In going forward the power was given me. Since then the consciousness of being an active member of the Kingdom of heaven has been very real.

In the next year, as Eric trained to qualify for the British Olympic team as a sprinter and finished his university degree, he also began speaking nearly every weekend at evangelistic rallies and churches. The more time Eric gave to sharing his faith, the faster he seemed to run. At the British Olympic Trials, in July 1923, he set a new British record of 9.7 seconds at 100 yards and also won the 220-yard distance in 21.6 seconds. Thus he had qualified for the 100-meter and 220-meter events at the 1924 Paris Olympics. .... [more]

Knowing & Doing Summer 2012 - Profile in Faith: Eric Liddell | Discipleship, Bible, Christian, Studies – C.S. Lewis Institute

Faith and freedom

Explaining why many Catholic institutions have gone to the courts to stop the HHS insurance mandates, John Garvey, President of Catholic University, uses an example from the Apocrypha. From "A Matter of Faith and Freedom":

A wonderful story in the second book of Maccabees describes the martyrdom of the old scribe Eleazar. It occurred during the Hellenizing campaign of Antiochus Epiphanes. He forced the Jews "to forsake the laws of their fathers and cease to live by the laws of God." Eleazar was ordered on pain of death to eat pork. He refused.

The men in charge of the sacrifice, who had known him for a long time, took him aside and offered to spare him if he would just eat something that looked like pork. "Such pretense is not worthy of our time of life," he said, "lest many of the young should suppose that Eleazar in his 90th year has gone over to an alien religion[.]" And so they killed him.

This is a story about religious freedom, and it has two points. The first is that we should put our duty to obey God's laws above our obligation to the state. (And it is cruel on the state's part to force people to commit sinful acts.) The second is that, quite apart from our own failure in forsaking God's laws, we do an additional wrong in leading the young to believe that this is acceptable.

I have found myself thinking a lot about Eleazar in the past few months, as we have looked for a way to escape the dilemma the Department of Health and Human Services has posed for The Catholic University of America with its mandated-services regulation. The regulation orders the university, in its student and employee health-insurance plans, to cover surgical sterilization, prescription contraceptives, and drugs that cause early-stage abortions at no added cost to the subscribers. If we fail to do this, we will have to pay a fine of $2,000 per full-time employee, or roughly $2.6-million per year.

The Catholic Church believes that married couples should be open to the possibility of new life, and that artificial interventions to prevent or terminate pregnancy are wrong. News coverage of the dispute has observed that many members of the church dissent from this teaching. Many of the Hellenized Jews in Judea went along with Antiochus's decrees, too. That division of opinion did not make the treatment of Eleazar any more liberal.

Like Eleazar, our university has been ordered by the government to do something it views as morally wrong. America, unlike the Seleucid Empire, has traditionally taken a tolerant view toward folks in that predicament. When West Virginia ordered the children of Jehovah's Witnesses to salute the flag (an act they viewed as sinful), the Supreme Court said, "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official ... can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." .... [more]

A Matter of Faith and Freedom - Commentary - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Torment without end

Via Elizabeth Scalia, "Chesterton and Lewis on the Tyranny of Bloomberg":

G.K. Chesterton’s assessment of fundamental liberty:

“The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.” – Broadcast talk 6-11-35

Nanny Bloomberg is now going after popcorn and milk products, because he’s very enlightened, as is our self-congratulatory and appallingly smug 21st century.

And everything he is doing was understood in the 19th [sic] century as a fundamental tyranny. Particularly by Chesterton and C.S. Lewis, two pretty damned enlightened men.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.” – C.S. Lewis” ....

Chesterton and Lewis on the Tyranny of Bloomberg

Flag Day

Tomorrow is Flag Day. A few years ago I posted this as something of a tutorial for customs regarding the flag which seem in danger of being lost:

Several years ago I was part of an exchange with secondary teachers from Japan. The Japanese teachers spent some time with us in Madison and in our schools and we did the same in Japan. As preparation for the experience, all of us spent some time together in Washington, D.C., learning about each other, getting acquainted, and trying to bridge some of the cultural differences. In one of the sessions a Japanese teacher asked why Americans seemed to place so much emphasis on our flag. Many Japanese are, for understandable historical reasons, very skeptical of anything smacking of nationalism. I explained that in our case we have no national figure—no queen or emperor—who symbolizes the nation. Nor does the flag stand for blood or soil. It stands for our ideals—"the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." It stands for what we believe in and aspire to be as a country. We honor the flag because it represents the Constitutional system that protects our freedoms and our rights.

In my files I just came across a pamphlet, undated, published by the Marine Corps, titled How to Respect and Display Our Flag. A stamp on it indicates that it was distributed by the "Marine Corps Recruiting Sub-Station" in Janesville, Wisconsin. Since the flags in the illustrations have forty-eight stars, it must be from the late 1950s. The rules it specifies seem almost quaint after the events of the last half century. The flag has been burned and trampled by Americans. It is flown night and day in good weather or foul—even by those who intend to honor it. A colleague used to put one on the floor of his classroom, inviting students to decide whether to walk on it. How one treats the symbol became partisan, expressing a political rather than a patriotic allegiance.

Here is the section from that pamphlet titled "How to Display the Flag":

Respect your flag and render it the courtesies to which it is entitled by observing the following rules, which are in accordance with the practices approved by leading flag authorities:

The National flag should be raised and lowered by hand. It should be displayed only from sunrise to sunset, or between such hours as may be designated by proper authority. Do not raise the flag while it is furled. Unfurl, then hoist quickly to the top of the staff. Lower it slowly and with dignity. Place no objects on or over the flag. Various articles are sometimes placed on a speaker's table covered with the flag. This practice should be avoided.

When displayed in the chancel or on a platform in a church, the flag should be placed on a staff at the clergyman's right; other flags at his left. If displayed in the body of the church, the flag should be at the congregation's right as they face the clergyman.

Do not use the flag as a portion of a costume or athletic uniform. Do not embroider it upon cushions or handkerchiefs nor print it on paper napkins or boxes.

1. When displayed over the middle of the street, the flag should be suspended vertically with the union to the north in an east and west street, or to the east in a north and south street.
2. When displayed with another flag from crossed staffs, the flag of the United States of America should be on the right (the flag's own right) and its staff should be in front of the staff of the other flag.
3. When it is to be flown at half-mast, the flag should be hoisted to the peak for an instant and then lowered to the half-mast position; but before lowering the flag for the day it should again be raised to the peak. By half-mast is meant hauling down the flag to one-half the distance between the top and the bottom of the staff. On Memorial Day display at half-mast until noon only; then hoist to top of staff.
4. When flags of states or cities or pennants of societies are flown on the same halyard with the flag of the United States of America, the latter should always be at the peak. When flown from adjacent staffs the Stars and Stripes should be hoisted first and lowered last.
5. When the flag is suspended over a sidewalk from a rope, extending from house to pole at the edge of the sidewalk, the flag should be hoisted out from the building, toward the pole, union first.
6. When the flag is displayed from a staff projecting horizontally or at any angle from the window sill, balcony, or front of a building, the union of the flag should go clear to peak of the staff (unless the flag is to be displayed at half-mast).
7. When the flag is used to cover a casket, it should be so placed that the union is at the head and over the left shoulder. The flag should not be lowered into the grave or allowed to touch the ground.
8. When the flag is displayed in a manner other than by being flown from a staff, it should be displayed flat, whether indoors or out. When displayed either horizontally or vertically against a wall, the union should be uppermost and to the flag's own right, that is, to the observer's left. When displayed in a window it should be displayed in the same way, that is, with the union or blue field to the left of the observer in the street. When festoons, rosettes or drapings are desired, bunting of blue, white and red should be used, but never the flag.
9. When carried in a procession with another flag or flags, the Stars and Stripes should be either on the marching right, or when there is a line of other flags, our National flag may be in front of the center of that line.
10. When a number of flags of states or cities or pennants of societies are grouped and displayed from staffs with our National flag, the latter should be at the center or at the highest point of the group.
11. When the flags of two or more nations are displayed they should be flown from separate staffs of the same height and the flags should be of approximately equal size. International usage forbids the display of the flag of one nation above that of another nation in time of peace.

A federal law provides that a trademark cannot be registered which consists of, or comprises among other things, "the flag, coat-of-arms or other insignia of the United States, or any simulation thereof."

Take every precaution to prevent the flag from becoming soiled. It should not be allowed to touch the ground or floor, nor to brush against objects.

When the flag is used in unveiling a statue or monument, it should not be used as a covering of the object to be unveiled. If it is displayed on such occasions, do not allow the flag to fall to the ground, but let it be carried aloft to form a feature of the ceremony.

On suitable occasions repeat this pledge to the flag:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The pamphlet also has the words of our National Anthem. We almost never sing anything beyond the first verse. The third is particularly good:

Oh, thus be it ever when freemen shall stand,
Between their loved home and the war's desolation;
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Power that has made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust";
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

First posted in 2009

Freedom of worship but not of religion?

Terry Mattingly, reporting on a conference about religious freedom, calls attention to a troubling distinction between "freedom of worship" and "freedom of religion" appearing in the speeches of some of our political leaders - including the Secretary of State. Thomas Farr, quoted below, is director of the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs at Georgetown University.

.... Clinton’s speech contained repeated references to freedom of “worship,” but none to freedom of “religion.” She also argued that “people must be ... free to worship, associate, and to love in the way that they choose.”

Thus, the Secretary of State raised sexual liberation to the status of religion and other central human rights, said Farr. This evolving political doctrine is now shaping decisions in some U.S. courts.

“Powerful members of our political class are arguing,” he noted, “that there is no rational content of religion; that religious freedom means the right to gather in worship, but not to bring religiously informed moral judgments into political life; that religious freedom must be balanced by the right to love as one chooses, and that to make religious arguments against that purported right is unconstitutional.”

In other words, argued Farr and other speakers, there is more to America’s current debates about religious liberty than clashes between religious groups and the Obama White House over Health and Human Services regulations that require most religious institutions to offer health-insurance plans that cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved forms of contraception, including so-called “morning-after pills.”

The larger civic argument, however, focuses on whether government officials can decree that “freedom of worship” is more worthy of protection than “freedom of religion,” a much broader constitutional concept.

After all, the HHS mandate recognizes the conscience rights of a religious employer only if it has the “inculcation of religious values as its purpose,” “primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets” and “primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets.”

In other words, “freedom of worship” protects a nun when she prays for people with AIDS, but she may not be protected by “freedom of religion” when caring for non-Catholics with AIDS in a ministry that hires non-Catholics. .... [more]

Christianity Today: "Stop Dividing "Worship-Oriented" From "Service-Oriented," nearly 150 Religious Leaders Tell HHS:

.... In a letter sent Monday (June 11) to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the 149 religious leaders note that they hold differing views on “the moral acceptability” of birth control and on the viability of various administration proposals to allow faith-based groups to bypass the mandate for contraception and sterilization coverage.

But they said they share a strong objection to the language that defines which "religious" groups are eligible for an exemption, saying the definition creates a “two-class system” of religious groups: churches, which qualify under the wording of the exemption, and “faith-based service organizations,” which may or may not qualify.

"This two-class scheme protects those religious organizations focused on activities directed inward to a worship community while offering little religious freedom protection to the many religious organizations that engage in service directed outward,” the letter says.

The letter says that “both worship-oriented and service-oriented religious organizations are authentically and equally religious organizations. ... We deny that it is within the jurisdiction of the federal government to define, in place of religious communities, what constitutes true religion and authentic ministry.” ....

Another threat to religious liberty comes primarily from the political Right: Fears of ‘Creeping Sharia’ - Matthew Schmitz - NRO

tmatt.net » Blog Archive » Freedom of “worship” vs. “religion” — again, Christianity Today Liveblog: Stop Dividing "Worship-Oriented" From "Service-Oriented," Nearly 150 Religious Leaders Tell HHS

Passion in, duty out

In a very interesting article adapted from his book, The Juvenilization of American Christianity, Thomas E. Bergler asks "When Are We Going to Grow Up?" attributing much of the growth of evangelicalism to its "juvenilization." But there are also serious problems. From the article:

.... In the first stage, Christian youth leaders created youth-friendly versions of the faith in a desperate attempt to save the world. Some hoped to reform their churches by influencing the next generation. Others expected any questionable innovations to stay comfortably quarantined in youth rallies and church basements. Both groups were less concerned about long-term consequences than about immediate appeals to youth.

In the second stage, a new American adulthood emerged that looked a lot like the old adolescence. Fewer and fewer people outgrew the adolescent Christian spiritualities they had learned in youth groups; instead, churches began to cater to them. ....

Despite its obvious weaknesses, this juvenilized Christianity proved highly adaptive to cultural changes. It fared equally well in the buttoned-down 1950s and the psychedelic 1960s. Long before the 1960s counterculture alerted everyone in America to the "Generation Gap," white evangelicals were already highly skilled at adapting their message and methods to young people. The pioneers of YFC and Young Life paved the way for evangelicals to accept long hair, Christian rock, small groups, or any other cultural adaptations that might be needed to capture the attention of later generations. Some of the growth of conservative churches over the subsequent decades would come from this expertise in recruiting and retaining young people.

The final step in the process was the transformation of American adulthood itself. Older cultural conceptions of adulthood encouraged responsibility, self-denial, and service to others. In the first half of the 20th century, most people clearly entered adulthood in their teens or early 20s by virtue of getting married, getting a job, and having children. More recently, the passage to adulthood has been delayed and rendered more subjective for most middle-class Americans.

In what sociologist James Cote calls the new "psychological adulthood," the individual's "needs and wants" expand and his or her "obligations and attachments" contract. The seven deadly sins have been redefined: "pride has become self esteem … lust has become sexuality … envy is now channeled into initiative and incentive … sloth has become leisure."

Of course, many adults still value virtue and deplore vice. But they also increasingly view life as an unending journey of self-development. And the contemporary landscape through which they journey has many paths that can end in self-centeredness or even narcissism.

In short, at least some traits that should be included in Christian maturity have been decoupled from adulthood in post-1960s America, and this change has encouraged juvenilization. Indeed, it is likely that the juvenilization of American Christianity and the emergence of the new immature adulthood have mutually reinforced one another. We're all adolescents now.

Because of juvenilization, American Christianity is doing much better than it should be. Despite numerous cultural, legal, and institutional changes that should have led to religious decline, American churches remain about as full as they were 50 years ago, and most Americans continue to believe in a God who bears considerable resemblance to the Christian God. Why? ....

Youth ministries and juvenilization contributed to this surprising outcome by making the Christian life more emotionally satisfying. Passion was in, duty was out. ....

.... Juvenilization tends to create a self-centered, emotionally driven, and intellectually empty faith. In their landmark National Study of Youth and Religion, Christian Smith and his team of researchers found that the majority of American teenagers, even those who are highly involved in church activities, are inarticulate about religious matters. They seldom used words like faith, salvation, sin, or even Jesus to describe their beliefs. Instead, they return again and again to the language of personal fulfillment to describe why God and Christianity are important to them. The phrase "feel happy" appeared over 2,000 times in 267 interviews. ....

Today many Americans of all ages not only accept a Christianized version of adolescent narcissism, they often celebrate it as authentic spirituality. God, faith, and the church all exist to help me with my problems. Religious institutions are bad; only my personal relationship with Jesus matters. If we believe that a mature faith involves more than good feelings, vague beliefs, and living however we want, we must conclude that juvenilization has revitalized American Christianity at the cost of leaving many individuals mired in spiritual immaturity. .... [much more]

Christianity Today - When Are We Going to Grow Up? The Juvenilization of American Christianity

"We have done those things which we ought not to have done"

In the late '60s at the college I attended some professors adopted the then faddish practice of allowing students to grade themselves. I doubt that very many "D" students gave themselves "A"s, but I doubt that there were many "D"s either. David Brooks writing about "The Moral Diet" reminded me of that practice. When we grade ourselves the temptation is to be generous:

.... For the past several centuries, most Westerners would have identified themselves fundamentally as Depraved Sinners. In this construct, sin is something you fight like a recurring cancer — part of a daily battle against evil.

But these days, people are more likely to believe in their essential goodness. People who live by the Good Person Construct try to balance their virtuous self-image with their selfish desires. They try to manage the moral plusses and minuses and keep their overall record in positive territory. In this construct, moral life is more like dieting: I give myself permission to have a few cookies because I had salads for lunch and dinner. I give myself permission to cheat a little because, when I look at my overall life, I see that I’m still a good person.

The Good Person isn’t shooting for perfection any more than most dieters are following their diet 100 percent. It’s enough to be workably suboptimal, a tolerant, harmless sinner and a generally good guy.

Obviously, though, there’s a measurement problem. You can buy a weight scale to get an objective measure of your diet. But you can’t buy a scale of virtues to put on the bathroom floor. And given our awesome capacities for rationalization and self-deception, most of us are going to measure ourselves leniently

...[Y]ou really shouldn’t shoot for goodness, which is so vague and forgiving. You should shoot for rectitude. We’re mostly unqualified to judge our own moral performances, so attach yourself to some exterior or social standards.

.... As we go about doing our Good Person moral calculations, it might be worth asking: Is this good enough? Is this life of minor transgressions refreshingly realistic, given our natures, or is it settling for mediocrity? [more]

From the Book of Common Prayer, representing that earlier standard of behavior:

ALMIGHTY and most merciful Father; We have erred, and strayed from Thy ways like lost sheep. We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts. We have offended against Thy holy laws. We have left undone those things which we ought to have done; And we have done those things which we ought not to have done; And there is no health in us.  But Thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us, miserable offenders. Spare Thou those, O God, who confess their faults. Restore Thou those who are penitent; According to Thy promises declared unto mankind in Christ Jesus our Lord.  And grant, O most merciful Father, for His sake; That we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life, To the glory of Thy holy Name. Amen.

The Moral Diet - NYTimes.com

The art of the possible

Does the refusal to compromise represent a political "profile in courage" or unreasonable stubbornness? It depends. Peter Wehner explains why:

.... It's worth noting that two of the most impressive figures in American history, James Madison and Abraham Lincoln, showed the ability to compromise at key moments. It was Lincoln, as a young man, who said, "The true rule, in determining to embrace, or reject any thing, is not whether it have any evil in it; but whether it has more of evil, than of good. There are few things wholly evil, or wholly good. Almost everything, especially of governmental policy, is an inseparable compound of the two; so that our best judgment of the preponderance between them is continually demanded." The Lincoln biographer William Lee Miller, building on this point, added, "[M]any reflective moralists, and most serious politicians, including Abraham Lincoln, perceive ... that good and evil come mixed and that the moral life most of the time (not quite all of the time) consists of making discriminate judgments, judgments at the margins, discernments of less and more..."

At the same time, there are those who speak as if compromise is itself, in principle, a moral good. But that approach is also flawed and potentially dangerous. Compromise for its own sake can set back the cause of justice. In the wrong hands, in weak hands, it can produce pernicious results. The point is that compromise can't be judged in the abstract; it can only be assessed in particular circumstances. It takes wisdom and statesmanship to discern when to hold firm (on fundamental principles) and when to give ground (on tactics and secondary issues). ....

The word compromise is something of a Rorschach test. Those who hold a liberal worldview often consider conservatives who fight hard for their cause to be inflexible and unreasonable, just as those who hold a conservative worldview often consider liberals who fight hard for their cause to be inflexible and unreasonable. What determines whether we judge a politician to be a profile in courage or a profile in intransigence almost always depends on whether we're sympathetic to the cause they are championing.

As a general matter, then, compromise is neither a moral good nor a moral evil; it's contextual. And it's why prudence, not compromise, is rightly considered to be among the highest of all the political virtues. .... [more]

Compromise v. Prudence

October country

Eve Tushnet writes about my favorite Bradbury novel in "Ray Bradbury: The Lightning-Rod Salesman":

It was cloudy this morning in Washington, D.C., a cool June day with rain behind it and sunshine ahead. But when I saw that Ray Bradbury had died I thought I felt a different season. His name will always make me feel the honeyed, shallow heat of Indian summer, and that first cold acrid little wind which comes twisting through the heavy air promising autumn. Bradbury played many roles as a writer—kaleidoscopic fantasist, visionary techno-skeptic—but for me he will always be the cartographer of what he called the October Country, and his great book will always be 1962′s Something Wicked This Way Comes.

Something Wicked is a strange book, and one which shouldn’t really work. Its prose is lurid and in most hands would become histrionic. Its hero is a young boy who seems old before his time, and its primary concerns are aging and regret. The book is about Will Halloway’s love for his father, yes, and about his love for his best friend Jim Nightshade, a kid with little guidance for his powerful and inchoate desires. But it’s also about the adults in Will’s small town, who feel that life has passed them by. It’s a Stephen King novel in disguise, about people whose deepest shames will be revealed by a merciless intruder: the nightmare carnival, which pulls into town at three in the morning when the sorry citizens of the town are lying in bed sleepless and restless and longing. ....

Something Wicked is an atmospheric book, creating a sense of dread and a lingering sadness. The bravery with which Will’s elderly father battles real evil doesn’t entirely dispel the book’s sense of sorrow, of lost opportunities; it’s a book which seems written in the subjunctive tense, all would-have, might-have. It’s a book which suggests that temptations will recur throughout one’s life, that vanquishing evil once doesn’t protect you forever. October will come around again, and the night wind will carry the sound of a distant calliope as the carnival arrives. .... [more]

More on Bradbury: Thomas Sipos on Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451:

.... Fahrenheit 451 is not about a government that burns books, but about people who disdain books.

Some have described the future America of Fahrenheit 451 as a totalitarian dictatorship. It is not. Part of the book’s genius is that it portrays a democracy engaged in book-burning. An election campaign is airing on TV. Nothing implies that the election is rigged. The telegenic candidate will surely defeat his uglier opponent, yet nothing in Fahrenheit 451 indicates a significant policy difference between them. We don’t know their policies, because the characters don’t care. They’re voting for the handsome guy. More importantly, they’re free to vote. They’re getting the society they want, book-burning and all. ....

The America of Fahrenheit 451 is populated with voluntarily dummied-down people. They anesthetize their intellects with 360 degree TVs: a giant screen on each of a room’s four walls. (Thus did Bradbury foresee flatscreen TVs and virtual reality.) They numb their feelings with prescription drugs. (Valium and Prozac.) They seek mindless thrills, speeding on suburban streets, killing pedestrians. They watch police chases on TV — broadcast live from helicopters. Quickly bored by their materially prosperous but emotionally and spiritually empty lives, they suffer from short attention spans. When the police can’t find and capture Montag in time, they introduce a fake Montag to catch and kill before the last commercial break. (Much like today’s faked “reality” TV.)

Fahrenheit 451 is not about a tyrannical autocracy, but about tyranny of the majority — from liberals’ hypersensitive political correctness (burning books so as not to offend minorities), to conservatives’ mindless, knee-jerk patriotism (there’s a war approaching, which none dare question). Yes, the government spouts propaganda and represses misfits. But the majority enjoy their propaganda and revile the misfits. .... [more]

Ray Bradbury: The Lightning-Rod Salesman « Acculturated, Ray Bradbury, A Writer’s Writer | The American Culture

"Theistic rationalists"

Seeking historical legitimacy for their contemporary political positions both the extreme "wall of separation" folks and the "Christian America" adherents oversimplify the beliefs and intentions of the Founders of the Republic. A few years ago I posted part of Richard Brookhiser's review of Steven Waldman's Founding Faith: Providence, Politics, and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America. After examining what can be discovered about what the Founders believed Waldman concluded:

“the Founding Faith...was not Christianity, and it was not secularism. It was religious liberty — a revolutionary formula for promoting faith by leaving it alone.”

Now comes another historian who has examined the religious beliefs of the most influential Founders. Gregg Frazer's The Religious Beliefs of America's Founders: Reason, Revelation, Revolution argues that most of them were neither Christians in any orthodox sense, and not Deists either, but what he calls "theistic rationalists." Justin Taylor interviewed Frazer about his conclusions:

What are the key “narratives” you are seeking to overturn in this book—either about Christian America or Secular America or the Wall of Separation between the two?

My primary claim is that the key founders (those most responsible for the founding documents and putting the new government into effect) were neither Christians nor deists, but “theistic rationalists” (a term of my construction).

I argue that both the Right and the Left are wrong about the founding.

The key founders did not create—or intend to create—a Christian nation.

But they did not create—or intend to create—a strictly secular nation with a “wall of separation” between church and state, either.

They believed that morality was indispensable for a free society and that religion was the best source for morality.

Contrary to the claims of secularists, they did not want to divorce or separate religion from public life; rather, they believed that religion was a necessary support. [emphasis added]

Contrary to the claims of Christian America advocates, they did not believe that the religion needed for this purpose must be Christianity—and they were not Christians themselves.

The key founders were theistic rationalists.

What exactly is “theistic rationalism?”

“Theistic rationalism” was a hybrid belief system mixing elements of natural religion, Christianity, and rationalism, with rationalism as the predominant element. Adherents believed that these three elements would generally complement one another, but when conflict between them could not be resolved or ignored, reason had to play the decisive role. Because they borrowed from natural religion and Christianity, if one selects statements conveniently and out of context, one can make them appear to be either Christians or deists. That is why both the Christian America camp and the secular camp can find snippets to support their claims.

We hear a lot of sweeping claims about what the “founding fathers” believed. But you’re uncomfortable with that kind of language.

General claims about “the founders” or “the founding fathers” where religious or political beliefs are concerned are not legitimate (with very few exceptions).

The founding fathers were a diverse group of individuals who were not all in agreement on virtually anything. I make claims concerning only the “key founders” (as I call them). The “key founders” are those most responsible for the Declaration of Independence (John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin), those most responsible for the Constitution (James Madison, Gouverneur Morris, James Wilson) and those most influential in putting the new government into effect (George Washington, Alexander Hamilton).

One should be very skeptical about general claims that begin with: “the founding fathers believed . . . ” or “the founding fathers thought . . . . “ There were Christians among the founders and there were deists among the founders and there were theistic rationalists among the founders—no legitimate claim can lump them all together. .... [more]

Frazer's approach was to examine the private behavior and correspondence of his subjects since they would have expressed themselves most straightforwardly in their private behavior. I read Waldman's book and found it very helpful. This one appears to be equally interesting.

America’s Key Founders, Neither Christians nor Deists: An Interview on a Major New Book – Justin Taylor

Ray Bradbury, RIP

Ray Bradbury died today, 91 years of age. I read much of his work when I was a teenager and particularly appreciated Fahrenheit 451 [I loved books] and Something Wicked This Way Comes [and I inhabited the local library]. I'm not a great science fiction fan and he wasn't really, for the most part, a science fiction author, although usually placed in that genre. From the Los Angeles Times obituary:

Author of more than 27 novels and story collections — most famously The Martian Chronicles, Fahrenheit 451, Dandelion Wine and Something Wicked This Way Comes — and more than 600 short stories, Bradbury has frequently been credited with elevating the often maligned reputation of science fiction. Some say he singlehandedly helped to move the genre into the realm of literature. ....

Much of Bradbury's accessibility and ultimate popularity had to do with his gift as a stylist — his ability to write lyrically and evocatively of lands an imagination away, worlds he anchored in the here and now with a sense of visual clarity and small-town familiarity. ....

“I'm not a science fiction writer,” he was frequently quoted as saying. “I've written only one book of science fiction [Fahrenheit 451]. All the others are fantasy. Fantasies are things that can't happen, and science fiction is about things that can happen.”

Ray Douglas Bradbury was born Aug. 22, 1920, in Waukegan, Ill., to Leonard Spaulding Bradbury and the former Esther Marie Moberg. As a child he soaked up the ambiance of small-town life — wraparound porches, fireflies and the soft, golden light of late afternoon — that would later become a hallmark of much of his fiction. ....

In Enemies of the Permanent Things Russell Kirk included Bradbury, along with C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, in a chapter titled "Rediscovering Norms Through Fantasy." Discussing Bradbury's Martian Chronicles Kirk writes:

.... When called a moralist, Ray Bradbury accepts the impeachment willingly. The desiccated intellectuality of Logicalism is a dying or dead thing; and therefore it is evil, for life is good, and its own object. One of his early explorers of Mars discovers that the extinct Martians had lived by a truth which modern man has lost:

They knew how to live with nature and get along with nature. They didn't try too hard to be all men and no animal. That's the mistake we made when Darwin showed up. We embraced him and Huxley and Freud, all smiles. And then we discovered that Darwin and our religions didn't mix. Or at least we didn't think they did. We were fools. We tried to budge Darwin and Huxley and Freud. They wouldn't move very well. So, like idiots, we tried knocking down religion.

We succeeded pretty well. We lost our faith and went around wondering what life was for. If art was no more than a frustrated outflinging of desire, if religion was no more than self-delusion, what good was life? Faith had always given us answers to all things. But it all went down the drain with Freud and Darwin. We were and still are a lost people." .... [Russell Kirk, Enemies of the Permanent Things, Arlington House, 1969, p. 121]

Author Ray Bradbury dies at 91 - latimes.com

June 6, 1944

The Mandatory Betterment Class

Lileks, reacting to Mayor Bloomberg's latest campaign and to those who approve of it:

.... A culture that redefines food choices as moral issues will demonize the people who don’t share the tastes of the priest class. A culture that elevates eating to some holistic act of ethical self-definition - localvore, low-carbon-impact food, fair trade, artisanal cheese - will find the casual carefree choices of the less-enlightened as an affront to their belief system. Leave it to Americans to invent a Puritan strain of Epicurianism. ....

[A bit unfair to the Puritans, but we get the point.]

LILEKS (James) :: The Bleat

The Right Honourable Mr. Burke

In The American Scholar, a magnificent appreciation of Edmund Burke - not the Burke of the political philosophers or of the ideologues, but Burke himself. From "The Right Honourable Mr. Burke" by Brian Doyle:

I tiptoe cautiously around his political life and political philosophy, partly because I am a poor student of the clash of Whig and Tory under King George III, and partly because Burke himself was an eminently practical politician, utterly uninterested in theory and eternally absorbed by fact, anchoring his political and personal life on a general reverence for church, constitution, and fair play; and partly because what made Burke a great man was not his politics, but his eloquence and wisdom about what politics was for.  ....

In his essence he believed, as he often wrote, that human beings, for all our heroic and graceful pinnacles, were also troubled, flawed, greedy, selfish, violent, and webbed with prejudices of the most ridiculous and dangerous sort, and that the role of a dominant religion (which should be state religion, he thought; he had no problem with Hindu or “Mahometan” nations, as he had no objection to his own Christian empire) and a powerful government was to trammel the worst impulses and foment the best. Thus Burke earns his modern hagiography as hero of Christian conservatives, who seethe at the muddle and stalemate and chaos of a liberal democracy.

For two centuries people with every sort of idea have picked over Burke’s writings for their own benefit and justification; and the lesson of their success is not that Burke was mercurial and changeable, but that he was relentlessly interested only in what worked, what was best for the most, what was real and what was high-flown nonsense or worse. “Again and again, revert to your own principles—seek peace and ensure it,” he roared in Parliament, during the bitter debates about America. “I do not enter into … metaphysical distinctions; I hate the very sound of them.” It is ironic that a man who wrote and spoke with such imaginative flair, with such moving eloquence, was himself unmoved, as a rule, by flights of fancy. ....

One last Burke story. Johnson, who both admired Burke and several times bemoaned his low humor, once told Boswell that “no man of sense could meet Mr Burke by accident under a gateway to avoid a shower, without being convinced—‘this is an extraordinary man.’ If Burke should go into a stable to see his horse drest, the ostler would say, ‘we have had an extraordinary man here.’ ” Years later, Burke happened to be passing through Litchfield, in Staffordshire, where Johnson had been born. Curious about the famous cathedral there, built on what is supposed to have been a sacred site long before Christianity, Burke stepped into the church, where he struck up a conversation with a clergyman. Soon enough Burke had to move on, and he and the clergyman parted. A few minutes after separating, reported the ever-attentive Johnson, the clergyman was met hurrying through the street. “ ‘I have had,’ said he, ‘quite an adventure. I have been conversing for this half hour past with a man of the most extraordinary powers of mind and extent of information which it has ever been my fortune to meet with, and I am now going to the inn to ascertain if possible who this stranger is.’ ”

But he was gone, the Right Honourable Mr. Burke, gone ahead, leaving only the shimmering memory of his remarkable mind and eager, hurried voice, his accent “as strong as if he had never quitted the banks of the Shannon,” as Nathaniel Wraxall remembered; and he is gone for us too, leaving only his remarkable prose and the plaudits and brick-bats of those who knew and heard and loved or detested him; and on dark days I wonder if soon even his beautifully cadenced prose will cease to be read by anyone other than fervid souls eager to find their own convictions affirmed by the patron saint of whatever political motley they wear. .... [more]

The American Scholar: The Right Honourable Mr. Burke - Brian Doyle

"Duty bravely performed"

John O'Sullivan explains why Elizabeth II's reign is worth celebrating, even by Americans:

.... In his Victorian study of the monarchy, Walter Bagehot warned, "We must not let daylight in upon magic." Modern communications do just that. Sometimes for the best—we know that the Queen is a brave and resourceful woman. In 1982, she calmed down a madman who had gained entry into her bedroom at Buckingham Palace. She is unaffectedly religious. She is devoted to her duty, not as a prisoner of ritual but as a practical sovereign working to preserve the monarchy as a focus of multicultural loyalty in a diverse world—and succeeding beyond any reasonable expectation.

Sometimes not for the best—a late threat to her success was the antics of the younger royals, notably Princess Diana, and the Hollywood cult of celebrity that seduced them. Celebrity and monarchy are natural enemies. The first is about enjoying fame; the second is about performing duties. Elizabeth always realized the distinction. Her third prime minister, Harold Macmillan, wrote of her decision to ignore a terrorist threat: "She is impatient of the attitude towards her to treat her as…a film star.... She loves her duty and means to be a Queen." For a moment around Diana's funeral, it seemed that this dutiful woman had lost ground to the glamorous "people's princess." But the febrile mood passed; the monarchy recovered its nerve. And when the Queen Mother died, her highly traditional funeral showed people rallying to the more solid ideal.

Americans may not celebrate Elizabeth II's Jubilee as fervently as some other ex-colonials. They will, however, applaud. When magic survives daylight, and the reason is duty bravely performed, we are briefly in a better world. [more]

The Real Queen Elizabeth II - WSJ.com

Forty days with Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Pastor Ken Chroniger has called my attention to a devotional series beginning today offered by Bible Gateway: "Take a 40-Day Journey With Dietrich Bonhoeffer: The Devotional Journey of a Martyr":

There was very little spiritual light to be seen in Nazi Germany in the 1940s. Horrific war had engulfed Europe. Hitler’s policies of euthanasia and genocide were rolling forward unchecked. Even as the European war lurched toward its conclusion in 1945, “peace on Earth” seemed impossibly far away.

Yet even in the dark night of Nazi Germany, there were followers of Christ who held up a light. The most famous of these was pastor and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who actively worked against Hitler for years—until he was murdered by the Nazi regime in the final days of the war. ....

Beginning on Friday, June 1, Bible Gateway is running a special devotional exercise called A 40 Day Journey with Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Each day for 40 days, we’ll email you a devotional based on the writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Each day’s reading features:

• A short devotional excerpt from Bonhoeffer’s writing.
• Relevant Scripture passages to ponder.
• Discussion questions to help you think through the devotional, and journal reflections that encourage you to put your thoughts down on paper.
• Prayer suggestions, and a concluding prayer.

A 40-Day Journey with Dietrich Bonhoeffer begins this Friday, June 1. It’s completely free; you can sign up at our newsletter signup page. If you’d like to see a sample of what you’ll be sent each day, here’s an example devotional.

Take a 40-Day Journey With Dietrich Bonhoeffer: The Devotional Journey of a Martyr | Bible Gateway Blog

Sixty years

Elizabeth II ascended the throne after the death of her father, George VI, on 6 February 1952. The coronation was held more than a year after the accession, on 2 June 1953. Her Diamond Jubilee will be celebrated this weekend. She has served longer than any British monarch except Queen Victoria.

I once, entirely by coincidence, stood within a few feet of the Queen as her car paused as it left through the gates of Holyrood Palace into Edinburgh. I'm convinced we made eye contact — at least she smiled toward me and I was the only person there that early in the morning.