Thoughts on the 4th of July

From Mark Hackard’s essay, ‘Manifest Disney’:

As we mark another Independence Day in America, it’s worth reflecting on the meaning of our country’s much-trumpeted exceptional status. Our land is indeed beautiful and blessed in many ways, home to millions of kind and generous souls. But to pretend that all is well would be whistling past the graveyard. The United States, we must remember, wasn’t ever conceived as an organic nation, but as a revolutionary construct, the herald of a dawning Novus Ordo Seclorum. And so its progress is always unfulfilled, its nature not being, but becoming, its vastness a continental-scale laboratory for social alchemy. Yet out of all attempts to identify the meaning of the American Dream, no one depicted its essence more aptly than a humble Orthodox monk, Blessed Fr. Seraphim Rose:

One might take, as a symbol of our carefree, fun-loving, self-worshipping times, our American ‘Disneyland'; if so, we should not neglect to see behind it the more sinister symbol that shows where the ‘me generation’ is really heading: the Soviet Gulag.

Fr. Seraphim wrote these words in 1982, the year of his repose at age 48, and their import today can only be deemed prophetic. A native of Southern California, Fr. Seraphim saw nearby Disneyland as the most fitting analogy for the modern West and its leading state, America. No place better encapsulates a society of fakery, “fun,” and narcissism than the Magic Kingdom, itself the center of a media empire whose tentacles relentlessly manage market segments from infancy to adulthood, bombarding populations worldwide with weaponized “entertainment,” i.e. psychological warfare, subversion with a smile. And as America strives toward its destiny, realizing ever more perfectly the revolutionary principles of liberty and equality, so we witness Disneyland Civilization’s evolution into its fullest expression, the digital Gulag.

 . . .

The rest may be read here:  http://souloftheeast.org/2015/07/04/manifest-disney/

A Christian Culture

T. S. Eliot once said that culture is the incarnation of religion (Notes towards a Definition of Culture).  This is a good beginning but still a bit lacking.  Prof Christopher Dawson sharpens this when he says, ‘ . . . culture is the necessary social discipline which subserves the higher ends of the spiritual life.’  In other words, ‘true culture is the cultivation of the soul—the discipline of salvation . . .’  (Religion and Culture, Washington, D. C.: Catholic U. of America Press, 2013 [1948], p. 147).

Therefore, in any theod (country) that considers itself to be truly Christian, the culture - all the material goods and institutions and arts and so on - should help the leod (people) in some way to attain communion with God, cultivate virtue, and contribute in general to the healing of soul and body.

So how does the culture of ‘America’, one of the pinnacles of antiChristian humanism yet somehow at the same time the greatest Christian country on earth, measure up against these standards?

In goldways (economics), it promotes greed and selfishness (what is called ‘enlightened self-interest’).

In governingways, its two-party, democratic electoral system promotes hatred, bitterness, and mistrust among the leod (people).

In tilthways (farming), it promotes ruthless exploitation of the land and abuse of animals.

In craftways (technology), it promotes pride in man’s achievements and his ability to ‘conquer nature’, and fosters forgetfulness of God through constant streaming of music, movies, etc.

In artways, it promotes vices of all kinds: impiety towards God and parents, sexual impurity, violence, unclean speech, etc.

In restingways (leisure), it promotes idolatry of athletes and actors and actresses, rudeness and drunkenness at sporting events, and heedlessness by watching too much television.

None of these help a man work out his salvation quietly, with love for God, other men, and all the creation.  None, then, should call the [u]nited States a Christian country (though we are quick to add that there remain many faithful Christians within the bounds of the States despite all this gloom).

Seeing all this, we say, Run, Southrons, from America, the latest Evil Empire to arise in the world.  Hasten, Southern brothers and sisters, to follow the vision of the Orthodox patriots of Russia, whose ideal of a national culture is ‘Church customs and Church art’, and the goal of which is ‘the canonization of new national saints’ in every age (Fr John Strickland, The Making of Holy Russia, Jordanville, Ny.: Holy Trinity Publications, 2013, pgs. 4, 14).  Hurry onwards, Dixiemen, to ‘achieve[] the ideal of a liturgical culture in which the whole corporate way of life is ordered to the service of [the Most Holy Trinity] in a continual cycle of prayer and sacramental action’ (Dawson, p. 80).

Then, we may begin to speak of a Christian culture in the Souðland.

'Appalachian Concerto' (or, a Symphony for Hillbillies)

‘Return to the Constitution!’

This is the rallying cry for many who call themselves conservatives in the [u]nited States, and on the surface it is attractive.  For the [u.] S. Constitution has received an abundance of praise for being a conservative document, even from such insightful men as Dr Russell Kirk and Prof Mel Bradford, as well as for its being well-crafted in its various articles and sections.

ƿe (We) do not wish to disparage good men, but the history of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 shows that the national compact was not written with the intent to find a golden mean in governlore (politics), to preserve local customs and distributed power, and such like. 

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, made it abundantly clear before and during the Convention that he thought the national government ought to have the power to veto directly acts of State legislatures, as well as other powers to bring the States to heel for the sake of the ‘general interest’ (Bill Kauffman, Forgotten Founder, Drunken Prophet: The Life of Luther Martin, Wilmington, Del.: ISI Books, 2008, pgs. 21-2, 53-5, quote at 53). 

Furthermore, those delegates at the Convention like Madison who leaned towards scrapping the weaker, decentralized Articles of Confederation for a more powerful, centralized system of national government far outnumbered those of who sought simply to fix what was lacking in the Articles (pgs. 19-20). 

In this group we find even George Washington himself, ironically.  For he is the most outstanding symbol of the War for Independence, and the Articles of Confederation that he sought to overthrow ‘was a constitutional expression of the philosophy of the Declaration of Independence’ (Merrill Jensen, The Articles of Confederation, quoted in Kauffman, p. 12).  Indeed, Jensen says well that the making of the 1787 Constitution was a ‘counter-revolution’ fought against the political ideas put forward in 1776 that ‘erected a nationalistic government whose purpose in part was to thwart the will of “the people” in whose name they acted’ (The Articles of Confederation, Madison, Wis.: U. of Wisconsin Press, 1970 [1940], p. 245).

This is not meant to endorse the anti-Christian humanism that is at the heart of the program of 1776, but simply to say to those who are willing to hear that the Constitution of 1787 is not the greatest achievement in the history of governlore, that the ‘demi-gods’ assembled in Philadelphia who wrote it had far different motives than those usually given to them by well-meaning conservatives.

For those looking for good models of government, in the Souð and elsewhere, we shall need to look away from the ‘efficient’ and ‘energetic’ model of the 1787 Constitution to what has been tried and proven throughout the ages (and especially in earlier times in our own States) and adapting those things to our present circumstances as best we can:  giving deference to age, to elders, in the halls of government; vesting again with power those chosen by God through the ‘accident of birth’ (that is, re-introducing hereditary elements); and so on. 

Colonial Virginia offers a good ensample of such praiseworthy old principles in action.  May we learn from our Southern forebears what we ought.

Judged by the quality of the men it brought to power the eighteenth-century Virginia way of selecting political leadership was extremely good; but judged by modern standards of political excellence, it was defective at nearly every point. As for voting qualifications, there was discrimination against women, poor men, and Negroes. There was no secrecy in voting, and polling places—only one in each county—were spaced too far apart. The two-party system was not in existence. Local government was totally un­democratic, and few offices at any level of government were filled by direct vote of the people: only burgesses in the colonial period and not many other officers for many years after the Revolution. Such modem refinements of political processes as the nominating primary, initiative, referendum, popular recall, proportional voting, and mechanical voting machines were, of course, unknown.

Nearly every detail of the political processes of eighteenth-century Virginia has been repudiated; but, at the same time, the men elevated by those processes have come to be regarded as very great men. Here is a dilemma in an area of fundamental importance, and its resolution is no simple matter. Was eighteenth-century Virginia so full of great men that a random selection would have provided government with a goodly supply of great statesmen? If not, must it not follow that the selective system played an important part in bringing to the top the particular men who managed the public affairs of that day?

 . . .

Source:  Charles S. Sydnor, ‘The Eighteenth Century to the Twentieth’, http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/review/the-eighteenth-century-to-the-twentieth/, posted 23 April 2014, accessed 12 June 2015

How Healthy Is Our Culture?

Anthony Esolen asks some simple but thought-provoking questions that we may use as a measuring rod in his essay ‘What Is a Healthy Culture?’.  Here are a few of them:

 . . .

How do we adorn our homes and our public places with art that comes from the people and is for the people? What whimsical craftsmanship is to be found on the steps of the post office, or the balustrade at the courthouse, or the eaves of the dry goods store? Do we build what is simple and sweet, or rather what is dull and drab? Do we build what is colorful and bold, or rather what is garish and obnoxious? Do we build what is noble and grand, or rather what is gigantic and inhuman?

What songs do we sing? If our captors asked us to sing the songs of Sion in an alien land, would we know any? How many of us could pick up a guitar or a fiddle nearby and play a love song passed down from ear to hand to ear to hand, from one generation to the next? What music brings together grandparent and grandchild?

 . . .

When we get together with all of our neighbors, what do we do? Do we build a house, raise a barn, glean the corn, bale the hay, march in parade, listen to patriotic speeches, play music, compete in games of skill or speed or strength, sing songs, honor the dead, or fall to our knees in prayer? Do we in fact do anything with our neighbors?

 . . .

Source:  http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2015/06/what-is-a-healthy-culture.html, accessed 18 June 2015

Should Christians Demand Rights?

The air in the [u]nited States is soaked with the talk of rights - rights to property, speech, privacy, etc.  To some this is proof that America is the people that God loves more than any other (before, now, or after), that mankind under the benign influence of individualistic, evangelical, Calvinistic Christianity has reached its fullest maturity here and can improve no more.  But this is not the sense one gets when looking through the Holy Scriptures and the life of the Church.

Consider first the teachings and ensample of our Lord Jesus Christ.  He did not plead His right to a fair trial before Herod or Pilate.  His Enfleshment itself, His sufferings and tortures, His hanging on the life-giving Tree, were all a refusal of His ‘rights’ as God (Phil. 2:5-11).  And He teaches everyone to live the same way. 

And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me (Luke 9:23 KJV).

Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you (Matt. 5:10-12 KJV).

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

 (Matthew 5:38-47 KJV).

The Holy Apostles continued these commandments of their Master’s in word and deed.  In the face of persecutions by Jewish and Roman authorities, they did not organize political protest movements, but instead taught their spiritual children such things as these:

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour . . . (I Tim. 2:1-3 KJV).

 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:

As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

 . . .

For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

 (I Peter 2:13-17, 21-24 KJV).

 . . . and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name (Acts 5:40-41 KJV).

 . . . exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God (Acts 14:22 KJV).

The Christians of the days after the Apostles likewise did not protest their cruel treatment before the palaces of Roman or Persian governors and emperors.  Rather, if they were sentenced to torture or to death, these holy mothers and fathers embraced their dooms as precious riches.

We see this in the life of St Ignatius the God-bearer of Antioch (+ 107):

In his Epistle [to the Romans], St. Ignatius asks Christians not to try to save him from death.  «I entreat you, do not unseasonably befriend me. Suffer me to belong to the wild beasts, through whom I may attain unto God.  I am God's grain, and I am ground by the teeth of wild beasts, that I may be found pure bread. »

http://www.stjohndc.org/Russian/saints/SaintsE/e_StIgnatius.htm

In the life of St Polycarp of Smyrna (+ 167):

Placed on the pyre, Polycarp lifted his eyes heavenward and gave thanks to God for finding him worthy to share with the holy Martyrs of the cup of Christ.

http://www.abbamoses.com/months/february.html

(From entry for 23 Feb.)

In St Alban’s life, the first martyr of Britain (+ 3rd hundredyear):

When the judge perceived that he was not to be overcome by tortures, or withdrawn from the profession of the Christian religion, he sentenced him to be beheaded. Being led to execution, he came to a river, which was divided at the place where he was to suffer with a wall and sand, and the stream was very rapid. Here he saw a multitude of persons of both sexes, and of all ages and ranks, who were doubtless assembled by a divine impulse, to attend the most blessed confessor and martyr; and had so occupied the bridge on the river, as to render it almost impossible for him and all of them to pass over it that evening. Almost every body flocking out of the city to see the execution, the judge, who remained in it, was left without any attendance.

St. Alban therefore, whose mind was filled with an ardent desire to arrive quickly at his martyrdom, approached to the stream, and, lifting up his eyes to heaven, addressed his prayer to the Almighty; when, behold, he saw the water immediately recede, and leave the bed of the river dry, for them to pass over.

http://kingsgarden.org/English/Organizations/LCC.GB/LCIS/Scriptures/LivesOfSaints/SaintAlban/BedeTheVenerable.html

And in the lives of many, many more holy martyrs and confessors.

Talk of rights is wrongheaded for Christians; the grasping after them separates us from one another.  Rights are a refinement of the heaðen feudalism that has plagued Western European thought and life for more than a thousand years now, which teaches that every man is at war (on some level) with every other man for earthly dominion (Dr Vladimir Moss, An Essay in Universal History: Part I, pgs. 268-72; available HERE), that he must build a bulwark to shut out others so that he may protect his life and what he has gathered for himself.  It is a fairly continuous line from the armed knights in their castles to citizens in constitutional republics armed with a vote (Ivan Kireevsky, ‘On the Nature of European Culture and on Its Relationship to Russian Culture’, On Spiritual Unity).  The ‘other’ in any of these ages is looked at with suspicion, as one who might take away something from the ‘I’ who owns it.

The Orthodox Church teaches something very different (see, e.g., Metropolitan John Zizioulas, Being as Communion).  The individual who cuts himself off from others is not a complete person.  Alone in his home with his gadgets and other comforts, he is nearly dead (and such an one may be alone despite the presence of others in the home with him, as we see in the modern phrase ‘alone together’).  A man or woman only becomes a full person, fully alive, by emptying his life of his own will for the sake of others:

Only by renouncing his own content, freely giving it up, ceasing to exist for himself alone, does a person fully express himself in the single nature of all.  Renouncing his separate good, he endlessly expands and is enriched by everything that belongs to all (Vladimir Lossky, in Fr Dumitru Staniloae, The Experience of God, Vol. 2, Brookline, Mass., 2000, p. 98).

Þis is precisely what we see in the life of the Most Holy Trinity, to which we are to conform in every way.  The way of love, of giving, of self-emptying, of humility, is the way of the Christian, not the way of demanding rights from others, the way of pride, self-love.  ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive’ (Acts 20:35 KJV).  ‘Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ’ (Gal. 6:2 KJV).  ‘It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak’ (Romans 14:21 KJV).  ‘So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do’ (Luke 17:10 KJV).

One could say soþlice (truly) that the prideful demand for rights (the right to equality with God, the right to the knowledge of good and evil, the right to eat of any tree in the Garden) led to the Fall of our first parents (Gen. 3:1-6) and to the train of evils that has followed upon it.

Granted, there are nuances to this general rule, as we see, for ensample, in the life of the Holy Prince Lazar of Serbia who led his people into battle against the Turks to defend their homeland.  But the West’s obsession with rights shows that its soul is sick:  It is more heedsome of the Kingdom of Man than of the Kingdom of Heaven.  It has forgotten the words of the Blessed Savior:

For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.  For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?  Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?  (Mark 8:35-37 KJV)

Welcoming Sumor (Summer): 2015

Music inspired by the summer season from Alfvén, Gershwin, and Vivaldi.

Thanks to these sites for providing helpful glee (music) lists:

http://www.classical-music.com/article/six-best-pieces-classical-music-summer

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111595310