Your work has always had the benefit of gatekeeping via wordcount. This is much appreciated, and certainly not a waste with regard to clarity.
When I found your work in uni a decade ago, it was a theological lifeline. Most of the people who have been willing to step into my life as mentors during my youth had or have since rejected God. When I look at the cratering of faith in my generation overall and among my peers specifically, it seems you vastly overestimate the maturity and quantity of the guides already in existence. Not everyone is suited to high level theology, political or otherwise, but word gets around as to whether certain people find it important at all, with the usual cascading effects. As for the American experience, early guides often include youth pastors, a role where immaturity is frequently mistaken as a feature rather than a bug. All in all, no need to be bearish on people trying to understand and apply God's word in the modern context, the Spirit has used lesser motives.
Our ambivalence about politics seems to be reflected in how we use the word as a pejorative one moment, then turn around and try to redeem it with neologisms such as "theopolitan" (cool neologism, by the way).
It's almost as if we know the polis is good and important, but we are ashamed at how badly we manage the polis, with our various sinful tics. So we pussy-foot around the word and the subject.
An entire life could be spent pondering Lord Acton's dictum I think.
Power and authority are the eternal objects of lust to those who would lord it over others. The hazards of agenda-driven retrieval projects are perhaps the outward symptom of this lust working itself out in the scholarly realm.
You mentioned a type of error which occurs in the theonomic reconstruction and the Christian Nationalist movements. I, too have noticed this error, and I think it springs from that libido dominandi, and I observe that it occurs across a spectrum.
The more that the would-be theonomist emphasizes the duty of the hoi polloi to obey God's laws, the more they tend to fudge or obscure the duty of the magistrate to obey the same. This corresponds to an agenda-driven interest in the law. But if they strive for parity between the ruled and the ruler under law, the more they evince humility and a genuine interest in the bible.
You'll often hear the former type quote the bible about how such-and-such sin should be punished, but you'll seldom hear them quote the bible about how a ruler should transcribe the law and read it every day.
Which reminds me of Nietzsche's dictum... "Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
This ambivalence has really been a matter of interest to me over the last few months. My recent Theopolis piece, linked above, is perhaps my most extensive elaboration of what I regard as a 'Theopolitan' politics.
Enjoyed your "Pentecost" piece and largely agree. Here's a quibble:
"While Christian ministers should speak with moral clarity concerning sin and righteousness in public life, they should beware of meddlesome involvement in questions of political policy or prudence in this present age and should firmly resist any tendency to throw in the Church’s lot with any political cause, or to use Christ’s sovereignty to underwrite any candidate, party, or nation. This is not because the Church lacks authority, but in no small measure on account of the danger of confusing the much greater enduring authority of the kingdom of God with or reducing it to the authority proper to the temporary stewards of this age."
I agree with this in practice, but not in principle. In other words, the degradation of ministerial authority does not happen by mere dint of a minister underwriting some political idea, but rather, because what he endorses invariably is impure, and Christ cannot be sullied.
Thus, if by some amazing turn of events, a politician put forth a law that was truly biblical, the minister really would have no other choice than endorse it.
But, because politicians never seem to do this, then in practice, it is prudent for a minister to withhold or greatly qualify any endorsement.
I think both our concepts arrive at the same place, but I feel mine preserves something more of the authority which Christ has over political stewards, without giving them the impression they can run in their own lane with some kind of sovereign authority.
I do appreciate your point that ministers and politicians have been given callings which God has described with some careful distinctions. Thus ministers should encourage prayers for even the bad politicians, as commanded.
And, as you said elsewhere, refrain from binding consciences.
If my outline seems too idealistic, I'm just practicing for when things get better, perhaps in a few thousand years. :-) Eternal optimistic postmillennialist.
Your reflections on infohazards remind me of "A prudent man conceals knowledge, but the heart of fools proclaims folly."
I wonder if the internet truly introduced a new dynamic of knowledge puffery. Isn't gnosticism an eternal problem?
Perhaps it did increase the velocity of knowledge, as techies like to point out. And, if knowledge velocity is increased, then also, so-called-knowledge velocity increases, since so-called-knowledge is by nature parasitic on knowledge.
A delightful travelogue, as always. There's little to compare with the delights of tromping about in Roman ruins.
Ran across this snippet in Chesterton's "Short History of England" which helps explain the attraction of Rome to those of us in the Anglosphere:
About that revolution (i.e. Christianity) no man has ever been able to be impartial. The present writer will make no idle pretence of being so. That it was the most revolutionary of all revolutions, since it identified the dead body on a servile gibbet with the fatherhood in the skies, has long been a commonplace without ceasing to be a paradox. But there is another historic element that must also be realized. Without saying anything more of its tremendous essence, it is very necessary to note why even pre-Christian Rome was regarded as something mystical for long afterwards by all European men. The extreme view of it was held, perhaps, by Dante; but it pervaded mediævalism, and therefore still haunts modernity. Rome was regarded as Man, mighty, though fallen, because it was the utmost that Man had done. It was divinely necessary that the Roman Empire should succeed—if only that it might fail. Hence the school of Dante implied the paradox that the Roman soldiers killed Christ, not only by right, but even by divine right. That mere law might fail at its highest test it had to be real law, and not mere military lawlessness. Therefore God worked by Pilate as by Peter. Therefore the mediæval poet is eager to show that Roman government was simply good government, and not a usurpation. For it was the whole point of the Christian revolution to maintain that in this, good government was as bad as bad. Even good government was not good enough to know God among the thieves. This is not only generally important as involving a colossal change in the conscience; the loss of the whole heathen repose in the complete sufficiency of the city or the state. It made a sort of eternal rule enclosing an eternal rebellion. It must be incessantly remembered through the first half of English history; for it is the whole meaning in the quarrel of the priests and kings.
Chesterton, G. K.. A Short History of England (pp. 6-7). Open Road Media. Kindle Edition.
You are correct in that the Internet does generally tend to "throw information at people," leaving everyone more-or-less up to their own devices when it comes to integrating that information. But I think the situation is worse than this merely "rob[bing] them of mature guides." For most people, the guides available to them aren't "mature" in the first place.
Indeed, your suggestion that "treatment [of dangerous information] needs to be careful and restricted to people who will handle it responsibly and with awareness of and alertness to the dangers that comes with careless treatment" implies the existence of some class of people with the ability, both personally and practically, to exercise such care.
The reason this rankles so many people, myself included, is really not a sense of "elites and scholars wanting to control and hold down the masses." There are certainly plenty of people who head straight into unhinged conspiracy theory territory. But one need not go that direction to have serious problems with "elites" and "scholars." Indeed, conspiracy-type theories give them far too much credit. The problem not agreement amongst "elites" and "scholars" to control information in order to accomplish a secret agenda. The problem is that as a class, our so-called "elites" and "scholars" have thoroughly beclowned themselves.
I'm not talking about personal moral failings here. Not mostly anyway. Such failings are depressingly commonplace, but they kind of always have been. Mere hypocrisy would be far less damaging than what we've got now, which is ignorance, incompetence, and cowardice. Christian culture is by no means immune from the "credentialism" which has so infected society at large. Authority is supposed to require wisdom, but it does not by any means confer it.
Take your example of a young man pushed towards misogyny both by his own experiences and things learned from others. These days, that young man is very likely to hear, including from mainstream Evangelical leaders, some combination of the following: 1) he has not experienced the things that he has experienced; 2) well-documented facts he has learned are not true; 3) he is morally reprehensible believing the things that he does, no matter how justified; 4) he deserves any pain/consequences of the things he has experienced is morally reprehensible for having any objections to them. That some of these things would appear to be mutually exclusive does not help matters. Much commentary from "elites" and "scholars" these days boils down to, "That isn't happening, and it's good that it is happening."
Any young man in such a position would justifiably conclude that his interlocutor doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. The young man need not inquire into why his interlocutor might be motivated to say these things to be justified in not listening, which is just as well. Pursuing such lines of inquiry is unlikely to lead to an increase in trust.
Other examples come readily to mind. Pastors publicly claiming that failing to wear a mask in church during 2020 was a failure to love one's neighbor. . . yet seemingly unwilling to impose any kind of church discipline on those who refused. Or even worse, taking the absurd position that even though loving one's neighbor required masking, it was up to individuals' own consciences about whether to wear a mask, as if it were possible to have a conscientious objection to loving one's neighbor.
Or church officers arguing that any physical depiction of any member of the Trinity, even of Jesus' incarnate body, is a violation of the Second Commandment. . . yet seemingly unwilling to take any concrete steps towards curtailing the practice, let alone disciplining those who engage in it. As if alleged violations of the Second Commandment, made blatantly and publicly, weren't sufficiently serious to justify formal action.
Or Pastors proclaiming the benefits of regional ecclesiastical bodies that supervise local churches and pastors. . . yet somehow never getting around to doing anything about other pastors publishing books or articles containing glaring examples of academic and/or intellectual dishonesty. As if the mere existence of rules guaranteed that they would always be followed without any need for anyone to actually enforce said rules.
It doesn't matter that doing such things would be difficult, personally and practically. The failure to even try makes a very compelling argument that such leaders do not really believe the things they say. Again, this isn't simple hypocrisy, which would be bad enough. Most hypocrites are fully aware of their own hypocrisy. This is worse. These men don't even understand the implications of their own stated positions.
The problem isn't that there's some kind of conspiracy. There can't be, as such would require malicious, or at least conscious decisions on the part of those involved. The problem is that a reasonable observer could look at these Christian leaders--pastors, elders, teachers--and come to the conclusion that they lack the wisdom, understanding, and/or courage to justify the trust their positions would recommend. Even worse, many such leaders will respond to any criticism, no matter how justified or obvious, by accusing their critics of not "submitting to authority". Which isn't really an answer.
All of which to say that most Christians today wouldn't really have access to "mature guides" even if the Internet weren't a thing. Since it is a thing, your suggestion that it is incumbent upon Christian leaders to restrict access to information is a really tough sell, to put it mildly. If Christian leaders are worried about the corrosive effect that the Internet has on establishment authority structures, the best thing they can do is to use their own authority wisely and effectively. Don't pretend to know things that you don't. Don't pretend not to know things that you do. Don't tell other people that they haven't seen the things they've seen. Don't pretend that the corrosive effect of the Internet on establishment epistemic authorities isn't a real thing. Don't tell people they are misguided for refusing to trust people or institutions with undeniable credibility problems.
Alastair, I know you are so busy and don't have much time to answer random questions, but will you please answer my two following questions? They are both yes or no if that makes it quicker.
First, Deuteronomy 14:22-29 sounds like God condones throwing a rager on the condition that we invite the clergy to join in. Is that really accurate? What are we to make of verse 26, where Moses explicitly mentions spending all our tithe money on "strong drink" and throwing a party?
Second, is there any chance that portions of Aristotle's though could have filtered down to Paul. I am amazed by Romans 11:36, "For from him and through him and to him are all things." To my immature mind this sounds like an invocation of fourfold causality. God is the efficient, formal, and final cause of all things, that is all creation—but noticeably not the material cause. So God created from nothing, and creation is essentially different from God. Is that reading in too much?
I wouldn't call it a 'rager', but it is definitely a true party, strong alcohol and all! It is important to note that this is not all the Israelites tithe, but just one particular tithe.
Paul was familiar with Greek philosophy so, whether he is taking it from Aristotle in particular or from the more general world of thought, we shouldn't be surprised by such connections.
Your work has always had the benefit of gatekeeping via wordcount. This is much appreciated, and certainly not a waste with regard to clarity.
When I found your work in uni a decade ago, it was a theological lifeline. Most of the people who have been willing to step into my life as mentors during my youth had or have since rejected God. When I look at the cratering of faith in my generation overall and among my peers specifically, it seems you vastly overestimate the maturity and quantity of the guides already in existence. Not everyone is suited to high level theology, political or otherwise, but word gets around as to whether certain people find it important at all, with the usual cascading effects. As for the American experience, early guides often include youth pastors, a role where immaturity is frequently mistaken as a feature rather than a bug. All in all, no need to be bearish on people trying to understand and apply God's word in the modern context, the Spirit has used lesser motives.
Thank you for your reflections, especially pertaining to retrieval. God bless!
Thanks!
The prickly pear is an import from the Chihuahuan desert to Europe. Its fruits make a tasty compote or jam 🤤
Interesting! I had not encountered it before.
Our ambivalence about politics seems to be reflected in how we use the word as a pejorative one moment, then turn around and try to redeem it with neologisms such as "theopolitan" (cool neologism, by the way).
It's almost as if we know the polis is good and important, but we are ashamed at how badly we manage the polis, with our various sinful tics. So we pussy-foot around the word and the subject.
An entire life could be spent pondering Lord Acton's dictum I think.
Power and authority are the eternal objects of lust to those who would lord it over others. The hazards of agenda-driven retrieval projects are perhaps the outward symptom of this lust working itself out in the scholarly realm.
You mentioned a type of error which occurs in the theonomic reconstruction and the Christian Nationalist movements. I, too have noticed this error, and I think it springs from that libido dominandi, and I observe that it occurs across a spectrum.
The more that the would-be theonomist emphasizes the duty of the hoi polloi to obey God's laws, the more they tend to fudge or obscure the duty of the magistrate to obey the same. This corresponds to an agenda-driven interest in the law. But if they strive for parity between the ruled and the ruler under law, the more they evince humility and a genuine interest in the bible.
You'll often hear the former type quote the bible about how such-and-such sin should be punished, but you'll seldom hear them quote the bible about how a ruler should transcribe the law and read it every day.
Which reminds me of Nietzsche's dictum... "Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
This ambivalence has really been a matter of interest to me over the last few months. My recent Theopolis piece, linked above, is perhaps my most extensive elaboration of what I regard as a 'Theopolitan' politics.
Enjoyed your "Pentecost" piece and largely agree. Here's a quibble:
"While Christian ministers should speak with moral clarity concerning sin and righteousness in public life, they should beware of meddlesome involvement in questions of political policy or prudence in this present age and should firmly resist any tendency to throw in the Church’s lot with any political cause, or to use Christ’s sovereignty to underwrite any candidate, party, or nation. This is not because the Church lacks authority, but in no small measure on account of the danger of confusing the much greater enduring authority of the kingdom of God with or reducing it to the authority proper to the temporary stewards of this age."
I agree with this in practice, but not in principle. In other words, the degradation of ministerial authority does not happen by mere dint of a minister underwriting some political idea, but rather, because what he endorses invariably is impure, and Christ cannot be sullied.
Thus, if by some amazing turn of events, a politician put forth a law that was truly biblical, the minister really would have no other choice than endorse it.
But, because politicians never seem to do this, then in practice, it is prudent for a minister to withhold or greatly qualify any endorsement.
I think both our concepts arrive at the same place, but I feel mine preserves something more of the authority which Christ has over political stewards, without giving them the impression they can run in their own lane with some kind of sovereign authority.
I do appreciate your point that ministers and politicians have been given callings which God has described with some careful distinctions. Thus ministers should encourage prayers for even the bad politicians, as commanded.
And, as you said elsewhere, refrain from binding consciences.
If my outline seems too idealistic, I'm just practicing for when things get better, perhaps in a few thousand years. :-) Eternal optimistic postmillennialist.
Your reflections on infohazards remind me of "A prudent man conceals knowledge, but the heart of fools proclaims folly."
I wonder if the internet truly introduced a new dynamic of knowledge puffery. Isn't gnosticism an eternal problem?
Perhaps it did increase the velocity of knowledge, as techies like to point out. And, if knowledge velocity is increased, then also, so-called-knowledge velocity increases, since so-called-knowledge is by nature parasitic on knowledge.
A delightful travelogue, as always. There's little to compare with the delights of tromping about in Roman ruins.
Ran across this snippet in Chesterton's "Short History of England" which helps explain the attraction of Rome to those of us in the Anglosphere:
About that revolution (i.e. Christianity) no man has ever been able to be impartial. The present writer will make no idle pretence of being so. That it was the most revolutionary of all revolutions, since it identified the dead body on a servile gibbet with the fatherhood in the skies, has long been a commonplace without ceasing to be a paradox. But there is another historic element that must also be realized. Without saying anything more of its tremendous essence, it is very necessary to note why even pre-Christian Rome was regarded as something mystical for long afterwards by all European men. The extreme view of it was held, perhaps, by Dante; but it pervaded mediævalism, and therefore still haunts modernity. Rome was regarded as Man, mighty, though fallen, because it was the utmost that Man had done. It was divinely necessary that the Roman Empire should succeed—if only that it might fail. Hence the school of Dante implied the paradox that the Roman soldiers killed Christ, not only by right, but even by divine right. That mere law might fail at its highest test it had to be real law, and not mere military lawlessness. Therefore God worked by Pilate as by Peter. Therefore the mediæval poet is eager to show that Roman government was simply good government, and not a usurpation. For it was the whole point of the Christian revolution to maintain that in this, good government was as bad as bad. Even good government was not good enough to know God among the thieves. This is not only generally important as involving a colossal change in the conscience; the loss of the whole heathen repose in the complete sufficiency of the city or the state. It made a sort of eternal rule enclosing an eternal rebellion. It must be incessantly remembered through the first half of English history; for it is the whole meaning in the quarrel of the priests and kings.
Chesterton, G. K.. A Short History of England (pp. 6-7). Open Road Media. Kindle Edition.
You are correct in that the Internet does generally tend to "throw information at people," leaving everyone more-or-less up to their own devices when it comes to integrating that information. But I think the situation is worse than this merely "rob[bing] them of mature guides." For most people, the guides available to them aren't "mature" in the first place.
Indeed, your suggestion that "treatment [of dangerous information] needs to be careful and restricted to people who will handle it responsibly and with awareness of and alertness to the dangers that comes with careless treatment" implies the existence of some class of people with the ability, both personally and practically, to exercise such care.
The reason this rankles so many people, myself included, is really not a sense of "elites and scholars wanting to control and hold down the masses." There are certainly plenty of people who head straight into unhinged conspiracy theory territory. But one need not go that direction to have serious problems with "elites" and "scholars." Indeed, conspiracy-type theories give them far too much credit. The problem not agreement amongst "elites" and "scholars" to control information in order to accomplish a secret agenda. The problem is that as a class, our so-called "elites" and "scholars" have thoroughly beclowned themselves.
I'm not talking about personal moral failings here. Not mostly anyway. Such failings are depressingly commonplace, but they kind of always have been. Mere hypocrisy would be far less damaging than what we've got now, which is ignorance, incompetence, and cowardice. Christian culture is by no means immune from the "credentialism" which has so infected society at large. Authority is supposed to require wisdom, but it does not by any means confer it.
Take your example of a young man pushed towards misogyny both by his own experiences and things learned from others. These days, that young man is very likely to hear, including from mainstream Evangelical leaders, some combination of the following: 1) he has not experienced the things that he has experienced; 2) well-documented facts he has learned are not true; 3) he is morally reprehensible believing the things that he does, no matter how justified; 4) he deserves any pain/consequences of the things he has experienced is morally reprehensible for having any objections to them. That some of these things would appear to be mutually exclusive does not help matters. Much commentary from "elites" and "scholars" these days boils down to, "That isn't happening, and it's good that it is happening."
Any young man in such a position would justifiably conclude that his interlocutor doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. The young man need not inquire into why his interlocutor might be motivated to say these things to be justified in not listening, which is just as well. Pursuing such lines of inquiry is unlikely to lead to an increase in trust.
Other examples come readily to mind. Pastors publicly claiming that failing to wear a mask in church during 2020 was a failure to love one's neighbor. . . yet seemingly unwilling to impose any kind of church discipline on those who refused. Or even worse, taking the absurd position that even though loving one's neighbor required masking, it was up to individuals' own consciences about whether to wear a mask, as if it were possible to have a conscientious objection to loving one's neighbor.
Or church officers arguing that any physical depiction of any member of the Trinity, even of Jesus' incarnate body, is a violation of the Second Commandment. . . yet seemingly unwilling to take any concrete steps towards curtailing the practice, let alone disciplining those who engage in it. As if alleged violations of the Second Commandment, made blatantly and publicly, weren't sufficiently serious to justify formal action.
Or Pastors proclaiming the benefits of regional ecclesiastical bodies that supervise local churches and pastors. . . yet somehow never getting around to doing anything about other pastors publishing books or articles containing glaring examples of academic and/or intellectual dishonesty. As if the mere existence of rules guaranteed that they would always be followed without any need for anyone to actually enforce said rules.
It doesn't matter that doing such things would be difficult, personally and practically. The failure to even try makes a very compelling argument that such leaders do not really believe the things they say. Again, this isn't simple hypocrisy, which would be bad enough. Most hypocrites are fully aware of their own hypocrisy. This is worse. These men don't even understand the implications of their own stated positions.
The problem isn't that there's some kind of conspiracy. There can't be, as such would require malicious, or at least conscious decisions on the part of those involved. The problem is that a reasonable observer could look at these Christian leaders--pastors, elders, teachers--and come to the conclusion that they lack the wisdom, understanding, and/or courage to justify the trust their positions would recommend. Even worse, many such leaders will respond to any criticism, no matter how justified or obvious, by accusing their critics of not "submitting to authority". Which isn't really an answer.
All of which to say that most Christians today wouldn't really have access to "mature guides" even if the Internet weren't a thing. Since it is a thing, your suggestion that it is incumbent upon Christian leaders to restrict access to information is a really tough sell, to put it mildly. If Christian leaders are worried about the corrosive effect that the Internet has on establishment authority structures, the best thing they can do is to use their own authority wisely and effectively. Don't pretend to know things that you don't. Don't pretend not to know things that you do. Don't tell other people that they haven't seen the things they've seen. Don't pretend that the corrosive effect of the Internet on establishment epistemic authorities isn't a real thing. Don't tell people they are misguided for refusing to trust people or institutions with undeniable credibility problems.
Alastair, I know you are so busy and don't have much time to answer random questions, but will you please answer my two following questions? They are both yes or no if that makes it quicker.
First, Deuteronomy 14:22-29 sounds like God condones throwing a rager on the condition that we invite the clergy to join in. Is that really accurate? What are we to make of verse 26, where Moses explicitly mentions spending all our tithe money on "strong drink" and throwing a party?
Second, is there any chance that portions of Aristotle's though could have filtered down to Paul. I am amazed by Romans 11:36, "For from him and through him and to him are all things." To my immature mind this sounds like an invocation of fourfold causality. God is the efficient, formal, and final cause of all things, that is all creation—but noticeably not the material cause. So God created from nothing, and creation is essentially different from God. Is that reading in too much?
I wouldn't call it a 'rager', but it is definitely a true party, strong alcohol and all! It is important to note that this is not all the Israelites tithe, but just one particular tithe.
Paul was familiar with Greek philosophy so, whether he is taking it from Aristotle in particular or from the more general world of thought, we shouldn't be surprised by such connections.